UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A knowledge management tool for method selection and feasibility reasoning More, Hrishikesh Rajaram 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-0018.pdf [ 20.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0063897.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0063897-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0063897-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0063897-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0063897-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0063897-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0063897-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0063897-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0063897.ris

Full Text

A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR METHOD SELECTION AND FEASIBILITY REASONING A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES by HRISHIKESH RAJ ARAM MORE B.E. (Civil), Shivaji University, 1998 Department Of Civil Engineering We accept this thesis as conforming THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2002 © Hrishikesh Rajaram More, 2002 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date )JGVWAhvr g , Z Q 0 2 , DE-6 (2788) Abstract Method selection for the various physical components that comprise a project is central to its successful and timely execution. The selection of appropriate construction method for a given project context is a daunting task given the plethora of available methods, resources, and change in technologies. Typically, preconstruction and prebid meetings serve as the venues for method selection decision-making, where experts from diverse backgrounds apply their knowledge and experience to determine a feasible construction process. Generally, these decision-making processes are not documented, and hence thought processes are not captured for reuse, are not readily transferred, and, as a consequence, mistakes can be repeated. The emerging field of knowledge management in construction shows promise to manage knowledge and experience of construction personnel gained on past projects for future reuse. The knowledge and experience represented in knowledge management tools can be used for partially or fully automated method selection and feasibility reasoning. In this thesis work, a knowledge management tool for method selection has been developed. After a thorough literature review and interviews with construction personnel, factors affecting method selection and feasibility were synthesized for activities related to formwork, reinforcement, and concrete placement. Using a product-modeling hierarchy, a method-modeling hierarchy, and an expert system inference engine, a feasibility reasoning schema was implemented. The thesis work is done in context of the knowledge domain of concrete high-rise construction. However, it is broadly applicable to other types of constructions as well. A conscious effort was made to provide comprehensive decision support for method selection based on technical considerations (i.e. wil l it work for the physical features present and the method feasibility considerations required), as opposed to optimization of construction method selection. A full-scale high-rise residential tower was used for proof of concept of the reasoning schema. u Table of Content Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Figures vi List of Tables x Acknowledgement xi Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Terminology 2 1.3 Literature Review on Knowledge Management in Construction ....3 1.4 Method Selection Process 7 1.5 Thesis Objectives and Methodology 8 1.5.1 Thesis Objectives 8 1.5.2 Methodology 9 1.6 Thesis Structure 11 Chapter 2. Method Selection Literature Review 13 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 Computer Assisted Process Planning Related Literature 13 2.3 Method Selection Expert Systems Related Literature 16 2.3.1 Formwork Method S election 16 2.3.1.1 S L A B F O R M 16 2.3.1.2 W A L L F O R M 16 2.3.1.3 Neuroform 17 2.3.1.4 EXSOFS 17 2.3.2 Concrete Placement Method Selection 18 2.3.2.1 ESCAP 18 2.4 Resource Selection Expert Systems Related Literature 19 2.5 Other Method Selection Related Literature 20 Chapter 3. PCBS and M&RBS Overview 23 3.1 Introduction 23 3.2 Physical Component Breakdown Structure 23 3.2.1 Terminology 23 3.2.2 Example Project 25 3.2.3 Additional Features Desired for the PCBS Hierarchy 30 3.2.4 PCBS Standard Side and Project Side 31 3.3 Method and Resource Breakdown Structure 31 3.3.1 Terminology 31 3.3.2 Example of a Method Statement 33 3.3.3 Additional Features Desired for the M & R B S Hierarchy...36 3.3.4 M & R B S Standard Side and Project Side 36 Chapter 4. Methods for Concrete High-Rise Construction 37 4.1 Introduction 37 4.2 Formwork Methods 37 4.2.1 Factors Affecting Formwork Method Selection 39 4.3 Concrete Placement Methods 49 4.3.1 Description of Concrete Placement Methods 49 4.3.2 Factors Affecting Concrete Placement Method Selection 50 4.4 Rebar Placement Methods 57 4.4.1 Description of Rebar Placement Methods 58 4.4.2 Factors Affecting Rebar Placement Method Selection 58 Chapter 5. Rule Writing for Feasibility Checking 64 5.1 Introduction 64 5.2 Method Selection and Feasibility Factors Characterization 64 5.3 Knowledge Representation Scheme 65 5.4 CLIPS 66 5.5 Issues Related to Feasibility Reasoning System 69 5.6 CLIPS Template for Project PCBS 69 5.7 CLIPS Template for M & R B S 73 5.8 Expressing Hierarchical Relationships in CLIPS 75 5.9 Expressing Method Selection Knowledge in CLIPS 77 5.9.1 Examples of Rules and Their Modeling in CLIPS Syntax 77 Chapter 6. Reasoning Schema 88 6.1 Overview 88 6.2 Objectives of Reasoning Schema 88 6.3 Reasoning Schema 88 6.3.1 Formation of Project PCBS Hierarchy 89 6.3.2 Exposing Project PCBS Facts, Instances, and Relationships to CLIPS 89 6.3.3 Formation of Method Statement Hierarchy 91 6.3.4 Formation of Method Statement Rule File 92 6.3.5 Exposing M & R B S Facts, Instances, and Relationships to CLIPS 94 6.3.6 Reasoning 94 6.3.7 Result Analysis 97 iv Chapter 7. Implementation..... 99 7.1 Overview 99 7.2 Project PCBS Description 99 7.2.1 Columns 99 7.2.2 Walls 101 7.2.3 Core 104 7.2.4 Slab 104 7.2.5 Site Location and Tower Locations 107 7.3 Project M&PvBS 110 7.4 Reasoning 112 7.4.1 Report Discussion 114 Chapter 8. Conclusion 118 8.1 Introduction 118 8.2 Contributions 118 8.3 Findings 119 8.4 Recommendations for Future Work .120 Bibliography 121 Appendices 130 Appendix A : Method Selection and Feasibility Factors Knowledge 131 Appendix B: Examples of PCBS and M & R B S Facts Exported to the CLIPS Environment 152 Appendix C: Examples of PCBS and M & R B S Instances Exported to the CLIPS Environment 170 Appendix D : Examples of Method Statement Rules Exported to the CLIPS Environment 201 Appendix E: Method Statement Feasibility Report Files 227 Appendix F: PCBS and M & R B S Hierarchy Reports 244 Appendix G: U M L Static Structure Diagram for PCBS Hierarchy 259 List of Figures Figure 3.1. PCBS hierarchy (part 1) of the example project 26 Figure 3.2. PCBS hierarchy (part 2) of the example project 27 Figure 3.3. (a) PCBS component hierarchy with Subelement "Core Wall D " ; (b) Subelement "Core Wall D " with attribute "Length"; (c) The value of attribute "Length" at location range " G F L - 23" showing existence of the component at that location range 28 Figure 3.4. (a) PCBS component hierarchy with Location component "Site location"; (b) Location component "Site Location" with attributes including "Length" 29 Figure 3.5. M & R B S standard library with component classes and an example Method Statement hierarchy with operations, methods, and resources 33 Figure 3.6. (a) Method Statement hierarchy with Operation "Concrete placing for columns"; (b) Copying standard Method "Separate Placing Boom" and its resources from Method Class "Concrete Placing Techniques" 34 Figure 3.7. (a) Method Statement hierarchy with Method "Flying Truss Formwork"; (b) Method "Flying Truss Formwork" with its parameters and conditions; (c) The value of parameter "Rate of Production" 35 Figure 4.1. Classification of formwork systems 38 Figure 4.2. Factors affecting selection of formwork methods 41 Figure 4.3. (a) Method Class "Column Forming Techniques"; (b) Method "Modular Column Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value 45 Figure 4.4. (a) Method Class "Wall Forming Techniques"; (A) Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value 46 Figure 4.5. (a) Method Class "Core Forming Techniques"; (b) Method " A l l Steel Modular Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value 47 Figure 4.6. (a) Method Class "Slab Forming Techniques"; (b) Method "Flying Truss Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Condition " M i n . Reuse Required" with value 48 Figure 4.7. Factors affecting selection of concrete placement methods 51 Figure 4.8. (a) Method Class "Concrete Placing Methods"; (b) Method "Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Concrete Placement" with value 56 Figure 4.9. Factors affecting selection of rebar placement methods 57 Figure 4.10. (a) Method Class "Rebar Placing Methods"; (b) Method "Column Rebar Assembly" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value 63 Figure 5.1. U M L static structure diagram of the association between project PCBS component, its attributes and their values, and corresponding locations 70 Figure 5.2. U M L static structure diagram of the association between M & R B S component, its attributes, and their values 73 Figure 5.3. (a) PCBS hierarchy with slab-bay components belonging to superstructure; (b) Component "SlabBay A " with its attributes 78 Figure 5.4. (a) M & R B S hierarchy with Method "Flying Truss Formwork" for Operation "Formwork for slab"; (b) Method "Flying Truss Formwork" with its parameters and conditions 79 Figure 5.5. (a) PCBS hierarchy with component "Core" belonging to superstructure; (b) Component "Core" with its attributes 83 Figure 5.6. (a) M & R B S hierarchy with Method "Separate Placing Boom" for Operation " Concrete placement for core"; (6) Method "Separate Placing Boom" with its parameters and conditions 84 Figure 6.1. Reasoning Schema Diagram 90 Figure 6.2. Exporting PCBS components in terms of facts, instances, and relationships to CLIPS 91 Figure 6.3. U M L static structure diagram of Method Statement and its constituents 92 Figure 6.4. U M L static structure diagram of Method, Rule repository, Rule, and Associations 93 Figure 6.5. Schematic Diagram of Method Statement Rule File formation 95 Figure 6.6. Exporting M & R B S facts, instances, and relationships to CLIPS 96 Figure 6.7. Reasoning with CLIPS inference engine 97 Figure 7.1. (a) Subelement "Column D " described as a column type; (b) Subelement "Column D " with attribute "Length"; (c) The value of attribute "Length" at the location range 100 Figure 7.2. (a) Element "Column" described as the collection of column types; (b) Element "Column" with attribute "Formwork Quantity"; (c) The value of attribute "Formwork Quantity" at various locations 102 Figure 7.3. (a) Element "Shear Wal l " described as the collection of shear wall types; (b) Element "Shear Wal l " with attribute "Concrete Quantity"; (c) The value of attribute "Concrete Quantity" at various locations 103 Figure 7.4. (a) Subelement "Core Wall A " described as a core wall type; (b) Subelement "Core Wall A " with attribute "Length"; (c) The value of attribute "Length" at various locations 105 Figure 7.5. Plan showing slab-bays with vertical supporting sides parallel to each other 106 Figure 7.6. Plan showing slab-bays in case-study project 107 Figure 7.7. (a) Element "Slab" described as a collection of slab-bay subelements; (b) Subelement "SlabBay A " with attribute "SlabBay Support is Uniform"; (c) The value of attribute "SlabBay Support is Uniform" at location 108 Figure 7.8. (a) Site location of the project described with component named "Site Location"; (b) Component "Site Location" with attribute "Site Storage Area"; (c) The value of attribute "Site Storage Area" at location 109 Figure 7.9. Method Statement hierarchy with operations, methods, and resources 110 Figure 7.10. (a) Method Statement hierarchy with method "Wooden Gang Formwork" (highlighted); (b) Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" with parameter "Rate of Production"; (c) The value of parameter "Rate of Production" I l l Figure 7.11. PCBS template, M & R B S template, and relationship rules and facts get defined in CLIPS environment 112 Figure 7.12. Method Statement rules get defined in CLIPS environment 113 Figure 7.13. PCBS and M & R B S facts (TESTda.fct) and instances (TESTda.ist) get loaded in CLIPS environment 113 Figure 7.14. During "Run", the facts, instances, and rules on agenda in the CLIPS environment 115 List of Tables Figure 4.1. Table of Slab formwork method selection and feasibility factors knowledge 42 Figure 4.2. Table of Wal l / Core Wall / Column formwork method selection and feasibility factors knowledge 43 Figure 4.3. Table of Concrete placing method selection and feasibility factors knowledge 54 Figure 4.4. Table of Rebar placement method selection and feasibility factors knowledge 61 Acknowledgement I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards the invaluable guidance, constructive criticism, and support given by my supervisor Dr. Alan Russell. I greatly appreciate his patience and dedication without which this work would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Thomas Froese for the constructive criticism, review, and feedback he provided on the thesis work. I am indebted to the cooperation and technical assistance provided by my friend and colleague Asad Udaipurwalla. The long hours of technical discussion spent with him were invariably helpful to shape the structure of the thesis. I would like to thank William Wong for writing and debugging the code necessary for realization of the thesis concept. I would like to appreciate the time, cooperation, guidance, and knowledge provided by the construction industry personnel interviewed. Finally, I would like to extend my word of thanks to my friends and family for their encouragement and support. XI Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction The important role of knowledge has been known for a long time. A prudent manager knows that the company's key assets are not the real estate, its market share, its stock prices, or its technological assets, but rather they are its people, their skills, and their knowledge. With the advent of information technology, knowledge and knowledge management have become industry buzzwords, because there is growing emphasis on embedding knowledge in organizational work processes for value added products and services. A n increasing number of companies have realized the importance of these terms consciously or subconsciously (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). The Construction industry, seen as a backward industry by some but still one of the bigger process industries, does not lag very far behind in the information technology revolution. Many construction companies are using information technology tools such as project intranets, project extranets, data warehousing, and so forth. These technological innovations have improved communication amongst the various players of a project. But now there is a growing realization by these companies of the need to "know what they know". Construction companies in their day-to-day operations have to deal with information, data and knowledge. Construction knowledge lies with the company's personnel, who acquire it through their experience and information exchange. Typically, experts from various fields of construction come together in brain storming meetings to apply knowledge and exchange their experiences in order to come up with a feasible set of solutions to the problems at hand. The value of such knowledgeable individuals is realized when they leave the organization. Whenever such "knowledge walkouts" happen the organization suffers a big loss (Tiwana, 2000). In an interesting example cited by Davenport and Prusak (1998), Russian officials wanted to build a new truck factory. They contacted International Harvester because it had built a plant in Russia twenty years earlier. It turned out that the company lacked the "necessary knowledge" because there was not a single soul still left in the organization that knew anything about the previous project. In such cases, a company pays a hefty price for having ignored the importance of knowledge. Similarly, in another example, a national level construction company was about to win an aquarium construction project contract, but the condition was to have a project manager with aquarium construction experience. The local division of the company did not have such an expert, and they had to relocate an individual from another division after a countrywide search. Such cases are very common in the construction industry, which highlight the importance of knowledge and knowledge management. In this thesis the aim is to develop a knowledge management tool for the construction industry with particular reference to construction technologies. This tool will facilitate 1 construction professionals to record their knowledge, which wil l enable organizational learning. 1.2 Terminology Terms such as data, information, and knowledge are often used interchangeably in the construction literature. For purposes of this thesis it is essential to make them explicit, as follows. Data Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined data as, "Data is a set of discrete, objective facts about events". They further state that, "Data itself has little relevance or purpose". In the construction organization context, we can interpret data as "a discrete set of facts about events, processes, and objects, which by themselves don't make much sense about their purpose or relevance." For example, a shear wall can be described in terms of length, height, thickness, etc. These facts by themselves do not give the purpose or relevance of the shear wall. They simply describe the physical component called shear wall. Information Many researchers describe information as a message, which is either a document, or an audible or a visible communication (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). A more appropriate definition is given in K L I C O N (1999): "Information is data interpreted in a given context. Different information may be gleaned from a single data source if the context is different." For example, the name of the contractor, name of the supplier, date of the receipt, weight of the product, and type of product constitute the discrete facts about an event. When all of this data is viewed from a transaction context, it gives the information about the event that happened, which was a purchase transaction between the contractor and a supplier regarding the given product. Knowledge There is general agreement that knowledge is broader, deeper, and richer than data and information (Davenport and Prusak, 1998): "Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information." 2 The definition given in K L I C O N (1999) states: "Knowledge is a body of information, coupled with the understanding and reasoning about why it is correct." In summary, knowledge can be defined as a body of information and experience with basic understanding and reasoning, which gives a framework for evaluating new information. For example, a piece of knowledge can be stated as: "The method flying truss formwork may be economically feasible only when the flying truss has a minimum of six reuses." This body of knowledge is a piece of experience with basic understanding and reasoning about the feasibility of Flying Truss Formwork method, which can be used in other cases to determine the feasibility of adopting this method. Knowledge Management After defining data, information, and knowledge it is essential to know "what knowledge management is all about." A n elaborate definition of knowledge management cited by Rowley (1999) is: "Knowledge management is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organization with a view to furthering the organization's objectives. The knowledge to be managed includes both explicit, documented knowledge, and tacit, subjective knowledge." Knowledge management essentially involves various processes, which are listed by Galagan(1997)as: 1. Generating new knowledge; 2. Accessing knowledge from external sources; 3. Representing knowledge in documents, databases, software, and so forth; 4. Embedding knowledge in processes, products, or services; 5. Transferring existing knowledge around an organization; 6. Using accessible knowledge in decision-making; 7. Facilitating knowledge growth through culture and incentives; and, 8. Measuring the value of knowledge assets and impact of knowledge management. Thus, the task of knowledge management, which is often depicted as a "Knowledge Management Life Cycle", deals with the exploitation of knowledge assets by generating, accessing, representing, embedding, transferring, and reusing knowledge for achieving the organization's objectives. 1.3 Literature Review on Knowledge Management in Construction The architecture-engineering-construction (AEC) industry is one of the largest process industries and a big player in a nation's economy. In Canada itself A E C accounts for 15% of the GDP (Industry Canada, 2002). It is distinct from any other process industry 3 because of its unparalleled fragmentation, which occurs across phases of a project and between the specialists at a given phase (Rivard, 2002). Egbu and Botterill (2001) state that the very nature of the construction industry, which forms temporary multi-disciplinary teams, makes it rely heavily on experience for planning and decision-making, as well as the formation of project and organizational networks. This makes managing knowledge and human capital particularly relevant to the construction industry. The majority of researchers agree that Knowledge Management (KM) will improve the competitiveness and organizational performance of construction organizations (Robinson et al., 2001; Egbu and Botterill, 2001; Al-Ghassani et al., 2002). The role of K M and organizational learning as a source of competitive advantage is also widely accepted in the A E C industry. A recent survey conducted by Robinson et al. (2001) in the U K , indicated that 80% of the construction organizations surveyed see benefit from K M to their organizations. Moreover, 30% of these construction organizations have a K M policy document and about 40% have a K M strategy. The study conducted by Egbu and Botterill (2001) revealed that a successful K M program involves factors related to "hard issues" (e.g. technology and knowledge content) and "soft issues" (e.g. culture, people, leadership, motivation). When developing a K M strategy a number of researchers focus on "soft issues" and deal with development of a framework or organizational culture, which enable individuals of the company to share and create knowledge. Other researchers focus on "hard issues" of IT applications to deal with intelligent document management, data warehousing, web-based applications (project intranet, extranet), etc. Kululanga and McCaffer (2001) argue that even though there is wide acceptance of human intellectual capital as a source of competitive advantage, when it comes to implementation of K M , a proper methodology is lacking. Moreover, they state that for the characterization of a successful K M strategy, construction organizations need to perform an assessment of their current knowledge management practices. In the framework developed by the authors, scaled statement indicators are used to quantify existing K M practices by benchmarking them against general business community K M practices. In an effort to implement a K M strategy in construction industry organizations, Kamara, Anumba, and Carrillo (2001) advocate that knowledge needs to be managed at two different and interrelated levels: • Knowledge Management within the project (i.e. across different stages of the project) from the perspective of a temporary organization and its supply chain; and, • Knowledge Management within the organizations (e.g., construction firms, consultant firms, etc.) to enhance the firm's ability to respond to customer requirements and to transfer knowledge / learning across different projects. 4 When applying a knowledge management strategy in a construction organization, a number of hurdles have to be overcome. The survey conducted by researchers (Robinson et al. 2001) regarding perceptions and barriers of implementing a K M strategy for large construction organizations revealed that: • The organizational culture is the most significant barrier. Culture in a construction organization is concerned with the values, beliefs, history, and traditions of the firm. • Other key barriers include: • The lack of standard work processes. • Time Constraints- Since a construction project is faced with a fixed time scale; there is often insufficient time for recording and sharing knowledge before, during, and after a project. • Employee Resistance- This is closely associated with cultural factors. A view expressed in the K L I C O N (1999) study conducted in the U K suggests that before an organization can establish a K M strategy, it must determine what knowledge to share, how to share it, and with whom to share it. The answer to "what knowledge" is important to share can be found in Kamara, Anumba, and Carrillo (2001) as: • Knowledge of Organizational Processes and Procedures- This includes knowledge of construction processes, statutory regulations and standards, in house procedures and best practices. • Technical / Domain Knowledge- This knowledge pertains to construction design, materials, specifications, and technology. • "Know - who" Knowledge- This deals with knowledge of people with skills for a specific task, and knowledge of the abilities of suppliers and subcontractors. The answers to "how to share knowledge" and "with whom to share it" are essentially the part of the organization's K M strategy that can be implemented with the help of K M tools. While various computer tools to assist are available in the market, no clear distinction has been made between K M tools and information management tools. The K L I C O N (1999) study categorizes K M tools into the following categories: 5 • Knowledge Generation Tools- These tools aid and /or automate the tasks of obtaining, combining, and constructing knowledge (e.g. Internet and Data mining tools). • Knowledge Representation Tools- Knowledge is context sensitive information. Tools can be used to store the meta-data after removing the context from knowledge. For example, the knowledge about the feasibility of a construction method can be stored as the general feasibility conditions, without any contextual information about the project. • Knowledge Retrieval Tools- These tools are used for retrieving stored knowledge, summarizing documents and searching documents including emails, web sites, etc. • Knowledge Sharing Tools- These tools are used to share knowledge through such mechanisms as a Project Intranet, web portals, and Lotus Notes. In an approach to develop an information management system application called Constructability Lessons Learned Database (CLLD) for a construction contractor, Kartam and Al-Tabtabi (1995) used Lotus Notes. Use was made of the CSI master format as the primary source for listing information about lessons learned in the form of problem faced, solution attempted, and additional comments. The system assists in information management and information searching, but it seldom gives the user the ability to model his knowledge or experience in a readily usable format. Elhag et al. (2000) developed The Knowledge System for the design phase of Liquid Natural Gas Tank (LNG) projects. The primary objective was to access, capture, and manage knowledge regarding the complex design process of L N G projects. The Knowledge System was implemented as a web-based system that captured information and knowledge across the life cycle of the project. Interestingly, the authors acknowledged the need for knowledge transfer as the information and knowledge evolved within different departments of the company. The literature review of K M in construction is summarized as follows: • Construction professionals have realized the importance of K M for their industry. There is greater awareness regarding managing intellectual capital and knowledge to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage. • Performing audits of present K M practices and organizational processes is necessary to highlight existing K M problems. Analysis of K M objectives of organizations should be performed to identify priorities and to determine i f a generic K M strategy can be formulated. • Most K M work done in the construction industry to date is related to soft issues of the organization such as culture, people, and motivation. Various IT applications have 6 been developed which are aimed at information management and document management. However, no broadly based "knowledge management tool" has been developed for construction processes. 1.4 Method Selection Process Method selection is one of the important activities of the pre-bid and pre-construction planning processes. Effective method selection is central to the efficient and timely execution of a construction project. During the pre-bid and pre-construction planning phases various experts come together in brainstorming sessions. A survey conducted by Laufer et al. (1993) of leading construction companies in the Western United States shows that analyzing and evaluating various technological alternatives involves a significant amount of collective effort in both planning phases. Project managers, general superintendents, subcontractors, and design engineers are among the dominant players of the project organization. While evaluating technological alternatives, these participants have to consider various factors including the overall configuration of the project (stand alone project or subproject of a larger complex), available time frame and milestones, structural characteristics and complexities of the project, work quantities and available resources, and costs associated with the alternatives for renting, leasing or purchasing major equipment and /or other temporary facilities for constructing the project. Experts rely on their past experience and knowledge of technological developments while selecting a feasible set of construction methods for a given project context. There is no standardized process or standard code, which can be used as a guideline in methods selection. Therefore it becomes a highly individualized process. Typically during the method selection process a large amount of knowledge is applied and generated, various assumptions are made, and various method applicability requirements and constraints are discussed. Ironically, records of the process are seldom kept for future reference; basically the reference only exists in the form of the participant's experience. The lack of explicit information regarding how method selection was performed along with assumptions, requirements, and constraints, hampers organizational learning. By keeping knowledge tacit, the construction industry forces itself to be an experience-based industry (Gil et a l , 2001). Thus a strong case exists to develop a knowledge management tool, which can be used to capture and model past experiences and knowledge regarding method selection in a reusable form. Exchange of such reusable knowledge repositories across the organization can help organizational learning, effective method selection, and facilitate standardization of work processes. Moreover, partially automating the processes of method selection and feasibility checking can relieve key personnel from repetitive work, and free them to identify and explore new innovations. 7 1.5 Thesis Objectives and Methodology A thorough literature review, the results of which are presented in Chapter 2, revealed that very few researchers have tackled the construction method selection problem to date. In most cases, what has been done lacks a comprehensive representation of method knowledge, which is necessary for the evaluation and feasibility analysis of various applicable methods. However, as already noted, the newly emerging field of knowledge management in construction shows promise for managing a contractor's knowledge and experience for future reuse. It is desirable to have a tool that gives comprehensive decision support as well as provides a knowledge repository for storing knowledge and experience gained on past projects in reusable format. Currently, however, such a knowledge management tool does not exist. 1.5.1 Thesis Objectives Specific research objectives are identified and explained below. • Objective 1- Method selection knowledge and feasibility knowledge elicitation and categorization. In general, knowledge is available from documented as well as undocumented sources. Documented knowledge is available in the academic literature, trade journals, product brochures, case studies, etc. This knowledge is highly fragmented, difficult to assemble, and often very general in nature. Undocumented or implicit knowledge is also available from construction personnel in the form of experience and rules-of-thumb. The scope of knowledge acquisition for the thesis was limited to concrete high-rise construction methods, i.e., formwork methods, rebar placement methods, and concrete placement methods. The objective was to elicit available knowledge in the form of factors affecting method selection and feasibility. The emphasis was on technical feasibility factors, as opposed to the non-technical factors such as cost, organizational perspective, and local practices. Although a reasonably narrow application domain was selected, the approach used plus all of the accompanying constructs are broadly applicable to many construction domains. • Objective 2- Represent knowledge related to method selection and feasibility reasoning in reusable format. The objective was to represent available knowledge in the form of factors that affect method selection and feasibility in a reusable format. Previous work on a product modeling hierarchy (i.e. PCBS 1 ) (Russell and Chevallier, 1998) (Udaipurwala, 1997) and 1 PCBS i.e. Physical Component Breakdown Structure. 8 a method modeling hierarchy (i.e. M & R B S 2 ) (Udaipurwala and Russell, 2002) as part of the research system called R E P C O N provided a foundation for the thesis work. These tools were used to model comprehensively the physical components and construction methods that characterize the superstructure system of a concrete high-rise construction project. Minor modifications to these representation schemas were made to allow a comprehensive representation of the knowledge needed for method modeling and feasibility checking. In this sense, the present work has helped to validate the broad applicability of the previous work on physical component and methods representation. What is important to note, however, is that the concepts described in this thesis can be implemented in any environment, which supports a product or physical component model of a project and a rich representation of construction methods. • Objective 3- Method selection and feasibility reasoning framework. The objective here was to develop a reasoning system framework using the product modeling (i.e. PCBS) and method modeling (i.e. M&RBS) hierarchies, and "user" defined rules that use physical component attributes and method parameters and condition arguments. This involved mapping the M & R B S hierarchy over the project PCBS hierarchy to allow rule based feasibility reasoning for Method Statement selection. • Objective 4- Implementation and validation. The framework developed under objective 3 was implemented to demonstrate workability, and data from an actual project was used to demonstrate that feasible methods could be identified. In reality, the system works by screening methods for infeasibility. No attempt is made to determine what the optimal solution would be for a given project context. This would require extensive consideration of cost, time, safety, quality, risk, and very complex reasoning. 1.5.2 Methodology The methodology used to achieve the thesis research objectives is detailed below. • A thorough review of the knowledge management literature pertaining to construction was made. The main emphasis was on knowledge management tools and practices in the construction industry. It was observed that despite the large volume of literature available about knowledge management practices in other process industries, the needs of the construction industry have received very little attention. • A review was made of the construction method selection systems literature. Knowledge-based applications developed for construction method selection were 2 M & R B S i.e. Method and Resource Breakdown Structure. 9 reviewed. The main emphasis of this literature review was on concrete construction method selection. We observed that the available expert systems for method selection use abstracted representations of project data and / or method data. In our opinion the feasibility reasoning they offer is of little help to experienced construction personnel. This observation helped to shape the basic framework for our knowledge management tool. • A thorough review of different types of literature was made regarding concrete high-rise construction methods. Knowledge related to methods was available in the academic literature, trade journals, product brochures, and case studies in construction industry periodicals. We agree with Hanna et al. (1992) that knowledge available thorough case study and product reviews in trade journals such as Concrete Construction, Concrete International, ENR, and Concrete Review is an alternative to an induction technique of knowledge acquisition. Knowledge gleaned in this manner was especially useful for the background preparation for the semi-structured interviews that were conducted with construction industry personnel. Knowledge available in the form of experience and rules-of-thumb was elicited from these individuals along with explicit knowledge to synthesize factors affecting method selection and feasibility. The technical feasibility factors affecting selection of a method were categorized and tabulated. Construction personnel interviewed included a general contractor, two formwork contractors, a concrete contractor / supplier, two rebar contractors / fabricators, a rebar detailer, and a formwork designer. A l l of these individuals located in the lower mainland area of the Greater Vancouver District, Canada. • A n appropriate knowledge representation scheme was selected to represent the method selection and feasibility knowledge available in the form of tabulated factors. Similarly, an expert system shell was also selected. The key points of consideration for expert system selection were its ability to embed with the legacy system R E P C O N , relative ease in programming for data transfer between R E P C O N data structure and the expert system, and the cost of the system. Thus CLIPS 6.2, which was originally developed by N A S A in the US, was selected as the expert system as it provides all the required functionality. • The knowledge available in the form of technical feasibility factors was expressed in the form of production rules using CLIPS syntax. With the help of software codes3 the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies were expressed in the form of facts. PCBS and M & R B S Templates, in the CLIPS syntax, were finalized for validation and definition of these facts in CLIPS environment. • Implementation of the reasoning schema developed and its validation for proof of concept was made by testing the system for a full-fledged high-rise construction project. 3 The software codes (in C and C++) were developed by Will iam Wong of Construction Management Lab. 10 1.6 Thesis Structure As noted in section 1.5, the focus of this thesis is on the development of a knowledge management tool for method selection and feasibility reasoning in high-rise construction. The ability to model experience and knowledge about method selection in reusable form as well as partial automation of the method selection task are central ideas to the thesis. In support of this focus, the thesis is organized as follows: • Chapter 2 examines past academic work regarding various method selection approaches. Emphasize is on the method selection and resource selection literature in the concrete construction domain. • Chapter 3 provides an overview of the product modeling hierarchy and the process (method) modeling hierarchy used for the knowledge management tool along with desired modifications to further enhance the hierarchies for method selection. • Chapter 4 presents an in-depth discussion regarding factors affecting high-rise construction methods selection. The scope is limited to formwork, rebar placement, and concrete placement methods. • Chapter 5 illustrates the characterization of the feasibility factors knowledge regarding construction methods. This chapter also discusses the knowledge representation scheme used to represent these factors. Issues related to feasibility reasoning system and examples of feasibility rules are also described. • Chapter 6 explains the feasibility reasoning schema and the steps involved in method statement reasoning. • Chapter 7 deals with implementation of the feasibility reasoning schema and illustrates proof of concept. • Chapter 8 concludes the thesis by listing contributions made, findings, and recommendations for future work. 11 A number of appendices support the foregoing chapters. Specifically, Appendix-A contains method selection and feasibility factors knowledge, Appendix-B contains examples of PCBS and M & R B S facts generated from the example high-rise project, Appendix-C contains examples of PCBS and M & R B S instances showing values associated with the facts, Appendix-D contains examples of Method Statement feasibility rules, Appendix-E contains Method Statement Feasibility Report files, and Appendix-F contains a report on the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies. 12 Chapter 2. Method Selection Literature Review 2.1 Introduction In this chapter we present a review of previous academic work by others related to method selection. We found it useful to divide the literature review into three sections: first, Computer assisted process planning related literature; second, Method selection expert systems related literature; and third, other method selection related literature such as constructability reasoning approach and simulation. 2.2 Computer Assisted Process Planning Related Literature In a pioneering approach to knowledge-based project planning systems development, Hendrickson et al. (1987) designed the expert system, CONSTRUCTION P L A N E X . The system follows essentially a "bottom up" approach while performing the construction-planning process. Method selection is performed in the system at two levels i.e., material selection and crew selection (i.e. technology selection). The first part of method selection is performed on element activities by selecting material packages, while the second part is performed on higher-level activities (i.e. project activities) in the form of technology selection, in which crew types and number of crews are selected. Interestingly, for technology selection the system uses heuristics about soil, site information, resource productivity information, and weather. It is apparent from the foregoing that the authors do not give an explicit definition of a method. Material selection and crew selection are dealt with separately. Moreover, the authors reckon technology selection as crew type selection, in which they equate resource with technology. Syal (1992) developed a Construction Method Selection (CMS) model for small to medium sized firms and a design-build environment. He advocates that a number of decision parameters need to be considered in the selection of one method over another. Unlike the authors of CONSTRUCTION P L A N E X , Syal proposes that, "the formulation of project activities is dependent upon the selection of construction methods and the associated resources." Syal (1992) defines construction method as the combination of construction option for the work item and the associated resources. In his model, method selection is a three-tiered process i.e., selection of construction option by defining Construction Process Elements (CPE), assigning crew types, and selecting resources (material, labor, equipment). When selecting a construction option and resources, the author uses firm related (i.e. internal) and project related (i.e. external) decision considerations. Interestingly, he treats defining CPE as part of method the selection process. 13 In an effort to build a knowledge-based construction scheduling system, Waugh (1989) based the reasoning on project-specific knowledge bases. The system describes a project in a knowledge base with three modules: assembly, crew, and method module. The description of a method is given by a hierarchically listed group of actions. The author used a project-specific description knowledge base for activity generation. Thus the system does method selection indirectly by selecting activities and methods not directly associated with resources or crews. Moreover, the requirements of resources such as technical feasibility, and sufficient space etc., are not explicitly dealt with. In a similar effort for the development of an interactive planning tool called M D A planner, Jagbeck (1994) used product models and construction methods. The definition of construction method given by the author is very comprehensive and includes domain knowledge of construction and site management as well as rules to compute plans. The methods rules translate construction components into activities and resources. The logic of activity dependency is encoded with the activities. Therefore, an activity plan with a greater degree of detail can be obtained by using a more detailed method. However, the selection of an appropriate method is left to the user. The all-inclusive representation of "construction knowledge" in a method makes its description more complex. The author's approach is similar to Syal's where methods generate activities. Many other knowledge-based construction project-planning systems have dealt with the generation of activities and schedules. O A R P L A N (Winstanley, Chacon, and Levitt, 1993) deals with resources represented under standard classes of equipment, labor, and material. The resource hierarchy is explicitly linked with an action model such that an action (activity within a project) or set of actions is associated with a list of possible resources. Thus O A R P L A N simply ignores the method concept although it considers resources. Similarly, GHOST (Navinchandra, Sriram, and Logcher, 1988), IKBS (Gray, 1986), SIPE (Kartam and Levitt, 1990), don't deal with methods and selection of methods for activity generation. Furthermore, Ganeshan et al. (1996) argue that the choice of construction method determines the crew requirements for construction activities and may affect the definition and sequencing of activities. But in their implementation of a rule-based planning system, they make the assumption that "the activity generation process is independent of construction method". Unlike Ganeshan et al. (1996), Aalami (1998) advocates that, "a choice of a particular construction method determines the activities and their dependencies". (Similar views are expressed by Syal (1992) and Jagbeck (1994).) Aalami developed a construction method model template (CMMT), which formalizes planning knowledge in a computer interpretable format. C M M T allows the planner to model activities required for a particular method. Each activity in a C M M T is defined with fundamental construction entities: components, actions, resources, and sequencing constraints (i.e. <CARS> tuple). The system allows the user to pick a set of construction methods for a given project design, then generates activities, and sequences them automatically for visualization in a 4-D production model. The system leaves the appropriate method selection to the users' discretion and doesn't reason about technical feasibility requirements. 14 In a recent effort in computer assisted process planning by Rankin (2000; Froese and Rankin, 1998) developed a system called Computer Assisted Construction Planning (CACP). The system uses case-based reasoning (CBR) for method selection. The reasoning scenario considers a product (i.e. project component) in the target project and supports the user in selecting an associated process type (i.e. a method). The system performs a query based on the presented case, which includes the process type and the product type with variables and their values. The retrieved case is then adopted to suit the present case and the process type (with all the relational objects) is added to the target project. Rankin argues that a method and its process share a "one-to-one relationship" and hence there is no reason to distinguish between them. In C A C P the method is modeled in the form of process type, associated process subparts, controls, and other relational objects. The constraints such as feasibility requirements can be associated with Process objects and Product objects. The CBR system, however, compares only product attributes, and a method's (i.e. process type's) feasibility requirements are not accounted for. As a summary of the Computer Assisted Process Planning Literature, observations relevant to the research detailed in this thesis are as follows: • From the literature review, one can observe two distinct approaches regarding the generation of activities. Some researchers assume that activities are independent of the methods used in construction, while others believe that the activities exist because of the methods. • There is no universally accepted definition of Method or Technology. Some authors defined method as a combination of resources while others defined method inclusive of activities, components, and resources. • Most of the systems developed to date are specifically aimed at automated schedule generation with minimum user involvement, and they tend to ignore the important process of method selection. Albeit there are some systems that treat method selection as a "run-time" user choice. However, they don't do any reasoning about the method's technical feasibility requirements, and further, most use a very narrow definition of what constitutes a method (i.e. it is internal to a single activity and relates mainly to the selection of resources). • The reasoning associated with a method is essentially about the generation of activities and their associations with resources. These systems do not reason about selection of the method itself. 15 2.3 Method Selection Expert Systems Related Literature As noted previously, an objective of the thesis is to develop a Knowledge Management tool for method selection for the high-rise concrete construction domain. Therefore, the author reviewed domain specific method selection literature for formwork methods and concrete placement methods. 2.3.1 Formwork Method Selection 2.3.1.1 SLABFORM: Hanna and Sanvido (1991) Hanna and Sanvido (1991) developed an interactive horizontal formwork selection expert system called S L A B F O R M for Horizontal formwork selection. The expert system has seven categories of horizontal formwork systems: conventional wood systems (stick forms), conventional metal systems (improved stick forms), flying truss systems, column-mounted shoring system, tunnel systems, joist-slab systems, and dome systems. The expert system was implemented in the E X S Y S Professional shell. Knowledge is modeled in the form of Tf-Then' rules. The rules are formed to reflect the factors that affect the selection of a particular formwork system. Various factors were identified such as type of slab, building shape, speed of construction, area practice, site characteristics, supporting organization, cost, hoisting equipment, and supporting yard facility. During a consultation session the system asks the user questions with answer options listed. The system utilizes backward chaining to arrive at a conclusion. The result is displayed with a confidence factor out of 10 (the value of 10 denoting absolute suitability). 2.3.1.2 WALLFORM: Hanna and Sanvido (1990) Hanna and Sanvido (1991) also developed a vertical formwork selection system called W A L L F O R M , which is very similar to S L A B F O R M . They categorized vertical formwork systems into five categories: Conventional formwork, Ganged forms, Slipforms, Jump forms, and Self-raising forms. However, the classification for vertical formwork systems considers only wall formwork systems. Further, they identified factors that affect the selection of formwork system such as vertical and lateral support, concrete finish, site characteristics, and hoisting equipment. The system consultation works in a similar manner to that of S L A B F O R M . Again the results are displayed with a confidence factor. For both expert systems, the rules used to determine feasibility are heuristic rules, which accept answers in abstract or quantitative terms, e.g. Building design is "uniform" 16 or "irregular". In practice, high-rise building floors are seldom exactly the same because sizes of structural components reduce at higher levels. The floor plate itself can also change in size. Therefore, one has to consider different sets of floors and go through the formwork selection procedure repeatedly. 2.3.1.3 Neuroform: Kamarthi et al. (1992) This system is a neural network application for vertical formwork method selection. The neural network is trained extensively on the heuristic rule sets formed by Hanna (1991) for the W A L L F O R M system. In a typical training example, an input vector described the building characteristics and the output vector described the correct choices of formwork system or systems. During consultation the system asks the user various questions and gets information regarding the building characteristics and availability of resources. This information is then translated into an input vector, and the output vector consists of information of formwork systems in terms of ranking. The goal of the system is not only to make an expert choice of formwork system, but also to understand and mimic the way an expert makes his decision. Heuristic rules are used to train the neural network. It is noted that neural networks lack control of the reasoning mechanism and hence cannot generate an explanation for the results given. 2.3.1.4 EXSOFS: Koo et al. (1992) Koo et al. (1992) developed an expert system for horizontal formwork selection named EXSOFS (Expert System for Formwork Selection). Formwork systems were categorized into six different types: conventional, table form, flying truss, column mounted shoring system, progressive strength system, and tunnel forming system. Backward chaining was used for formwork selection. During a consultation session the system asks the user a series of questions on building conditions, site conditions, and cost. Unlike the other systems described, this system asks the user more detailed numerical input regarding building size, typical floor area, number of stories, information regarding formwork resource, etc. Depending on the answers, system performs calculations to give an economical number of formwork sets, number of reuses, and suggestions to complete the project on time. The system even considers localized variations in beam, column, and wall sizes in order to suggest whether a conventional formwork or proprietary system (i.e. system formwork) is suitable. The system can also perform cost calculations for renting or purchasing given a formwork cost database. 17 2.3.2 Concrete Placement Method Selection 2.3.2.1 ESCAP: (Alkass, Aronian, and Moselhi, 1990; Alkass and Aronian, 1990) The authors developed an integrated computer system called Expert System Advisor for Concrete Placing (ESCAP) for cost optimization in concrete transportation and concrete placement activities. The knowledge regarding concrete placement equipment selection was obtained from experts and stored in an expert system knowledge base module, which in turn was integrated with procedural algorithms for performing routine calculations needed for the selection process. The system has four distinct modules: (1) Task identification; (2) Broad equipment selection; (3) Productivity; and (4) Final selection. In the Task identification module the system asks the user questions about site conditions, mixing procedures, accessibility, traffic laws, weather, etc. to determine job conditions in terms of GOOD, FAIR, and B A D . The Broad equipment selection module is subdivided into a Transportation submodule (which selects transportation equipment) and a Pour submodule (which helps the user to select crane and pump as placing equipment). In the Productivity module the ideal output rates of equipment are adjusted by taking into consideration the type of work, weather conditions, operator efficiency, etc. A n external program performs calculations regarding type and number of equipment required. In the Final selection module, analysis is performed depending upon machine performance and economic factors for precise comparisons. This system provides extensive help in terms of optimizing the concrete placement process. As a summary of the methods selection expert systems related literature, the following observations are relevant to this thesis work. • Few attempts to develop formwork selection expert systems have been made. Systems developed to date use abstract terms (e.g., "uniform" or "irregular") or predefined quantitative terms to describe the project and seldom consider method / resource specific technical feasibility requirements such as minimum slab-bay width required for flying truss formwork, story height required, site space requirement for flying truss assembly, and vertical support requirements for column-mounted flytable system. • Expert systems developed to date are mainly aimed at training inexperienced people and do not provide valuable project specific decision support to the expert user. • The method selection approach adopted in these expert systems is aimed at optimization, which often includes a procedural flow of rule execution, making it difficult to update these systems to include new or enhanced technologies. • The time available for concrete placement as well as the quantity to be placed influences the selection of concrete placement equipment. Often the quantity and the time frame vary according to the desired construction cycle on a high-rise project. 18 Such considerations demand a more detailed approach for concrete placement method selection. • The method selection expert systems developed to date are domain specific stand-alone applications. Hence, they lack the necessary characteristics required by a Knowledge Management tool for managing the user's own knowledge / experience and sharing it across the organization in a readily usable format for a broad range of methods and applications. 2.4 Resource Selection Expert Systems Related Literature A few attempts have been made to develop resource selection systems. Swahney and Mund (2002) took a unique approach for crane selection by using artificial neural networks and expert system technologies to produce a prototype called IntelliCranes. The system has two main modules; a neural network based crane type selection and a knowledge-based expert system for crane model selection. The neural network module selects the type of the crane depending upon user given input regarding the project such as type of use, duration of use, construction height, site spaciousness, etc. The model selection module gets input from the user regarding maximum radius expected, clearance between buildings and boom, load placement height, etc. to give the appropriate model of the crane. S E L E C T C R A N E is an expert system developed by Hanna (1994). The system asks the user information about the height of the building, maximum lifting capacity required, maximum lift radius, lifting frequency, site conditions, etc. The system recommends a type of crane suitable for the given project. The C R A N E system developed by Chalabi and Christopher (1989) on the other hand helps in crane selection as well as its placement. According to the contextual information provided, the system determines the number of cranes necessary for the job. Using site information it also determines the optimum crane location. Alkass and Harris (1988) developed an expert system for earthmoving equipment selection in road construction called ESEMPS. The system development is aimed at advising inexperienced personnel regarding earthmoving equipment selection. Knowledge is represented in the form of rules, which are linked by if-then logic in the logic tree to reflect the expert's reasoning mechanism. Equipment selection is performed in four stages: identify task and job conditions, select machine, output estimation and machine matching, and select machine by time and cost analysis. The answers given to the system during consultation can be factual (i.e. yes, no, and do not know) or probabilistic answers (i.e. -5 to +5 range). 19 2.5 Other Method Selection Related Literature Fischer (1993; 1991) developed construction Knowledge Expert (COKE) for constructability reasoning by linking C A D with an expert system. The aim of the system was to make the contractor's construction knowledge readily available to the designer during the project design phase in order to make better-informed decisions. The author classified constructability knowledge into five categories: 1. Application heuristics are the knowledge items that relate overall project parameters (i.e. total floor area, number of floors, etc.) 2. Layout knowledge is knowledge related to the vertical and horizontal layout of structural elements (e.g. distance between columns) 3. Dimensioning knowledge such as the dimensions of structural elements (e.g. thickness of a slab) 4. Detailing knowledge shows the requirements of a given construction method as related to structural details (e.g. rebar arrangement) 5. Exogenous knowledge is knowledge that relates to exogenous constructability factors (e.g., weather conditions). The system was implemented using CIFECAD and the K A P P A - P C expert system shell. The user creates an AutoCAD model of the project and stores the data about type, location, dimension, connections, and additional attributes for every project element. The file (ASCII file) is read by functions in K A P P A - P C to create a symbolic project model. For the purpose of reasoning, methods are represented by frames in the expert system shell. These frames include slots, which are the independent knowledge items with corresponding values. The system gives results in the form of constructability feedback e.g., a function in the system compares the bottom widths of all the beams with the available formwork sizes and alerts the designer by printing a message. The approach demands extensive data input effort in the C A D model. Modeling knowledge in the form of a slot makes it easier for the user to change it without disturbing internal reasoning functions. The scope of the C O K E is limited to feedback to designer. Therefore it only treats the first three categories of knowledge in the implementation. The system only treats knowledge about formwork methods. This system reflects many of the attributes we believe are important in a knowledge management tool. Skibniewski and Chao (1992) used the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to evaluate different technological alternatives for method selection. In their relatively informal approach they dealt with risk, return on investment, and benefits as well as intangible benefits such as competitive edge and quality performance. In A H P the decision maker can prioritize his objective by performing sensitivity analysis. This approach is more suitable for large organizations in decision-making regarding large investments such as the purchase of piling equipment, crane leasing or purchasing, etc. However, the evaluation of multiple methods simultaneously becomes a complex issue. Since it does not take into consideration the compatibility between methods as well as 20 method-specific technical feasibility and resource requirements, it does not appear to be a useful tool for method selection at the project level. Hastak (1998) also used the A H P approach for developing a decision support system. Unlike Skibniewski and Chao, he took a more formal approach and considered five criteria for evaluation: need-based, technological, economic, project specific, and safety or risk, In a group decision modeling system he evaluated each team member for their technical knowledge, experience, project knowledge, and knowledge about the firm. This input is provided to the model for pair-wise hierarchical evaluation of methods using the foregoing criteria plus additional sub-criteria such as labor, skill requirements, etc. This decision support system is useful for the evaluation of new technology where little experience is available. Interestingly, Hastak considered technical requirements and project-specific requirements as intangible evaluation criteria. In terms of the development of a decision support system for method selection, Allouche (2001) developed such a system for trenchless construction methods. The system performs a two-stage method selection process: technical evaluation and preference evaluation. During the technical evaluation stage, various technical parameters (diameter, maximum drive length, etc.) and compatibility parameters (used for determining a method's suitability to anticipated ground conditions i.e., the project context) are considered. In the preference evaluation stage a risk index is computed for user specified preference attributes such as cost, environmental impact, etc. The system also calculates probabilistic estimates regarding how well the construction method satisfies the preference attributes. Al-Hammad (1991) developed a knowledge based method selection system (CMSA) as a stand-alone expert system application for the cut-and-cover tunneling knowledge domain. The system uses four operators: suggest, design, predict, and analyze. The suggest operator selects a method, the design operator asks a series of questions to describe design element, the predict operator calculates production cost and assesses risks, and the analyze operator compares the time/cost to the target project time/cost. The system uses simple heuristic rules as well as computing procedures. Simulation techniques are also useful for method selection where uncertainty is a prominent aspect of construction. AbouRizk and Mather (1998) developed a CAD-based simulation tool for earthmoving construction method selection. They advocate that the stochastic nature of construction processes as well as the dynamic interactions between resources and activities can be effectively handled by using simulation techniques. The system consists of a C A D structure and simulation entities, which are connected by data manager. C A D helps the user by comprehensively describing excavation site in terms of three-dimensional blocks with associated physical properties. The construction sequence and excavation method can be defined for each block. The results of simulation are used in a cost analysis to determine the construction methods with lowest overall project cost. In an interesting effort towards selecting the optimum construction method strategy, Ugwu and Tah (1998) used a genetic algorithm (GA). He developed a hybrid G A system 21 that is integrated with a project database to perform combinatorial resource optimization. He assumed that construction resources determine the construction method. The system is especially useful where a set of resources is used by a number of construction activities causing resource constraints. As a summary of above approaches identified in the literature related to methods selection, relevant observations are as follows: • None of these approaches described provide the characteristics needed for a broadly based knowledge management tool. • A H P based decision support systems lack a comprehensive representation of methods. • The simulation approach of method selection taken by a number of researchers is basically a process-oriented approach, and does not take into consideration the feasibility requirements for a method. • The knowledge based method selection approach taken by a number of researchers is limited by the need to specify comprehensive method and product representations within an expert system shell. This limits their use as a "stand-alone" knowledge management tool. Not withstanding the foregoing comments, where appropriate, use has been made of related aspects of the work cited (for example, the concept of screening for infeasibility see Al-Hammad (1991) and the knowledge bases compiled by others, especially those of Hanna and Sanvido (1991, 1990) and Fischer (1991)). 22 Chapter 3. PCBS and M&RBS Overview 3.1 Introduction In this chapter we describe in detail the existing semantics of the product modeling and method (process) modeling hierarchies. The product modeling hierarchy is called Physical Component Breakdown Structure (PCBS), and the method (process) modeling hierarchy is called Method and Resource Breakdown Structure (M&RBS). The PCBS hierarchy was originally developed by Russell and Chevallier (1998), and the M & R B S hierarchy was developed by Udaipurwala (1997) and Sharma (1997). Use of these hierarchies (along with modifications identified as part of the work described herein) is central to the knowledge management tool described in this thesis. 3.2 Physical Component Breakdown Structure The physical component breakdown structure (PCBS) consists of a semantically predefined hierarchy of project components. The standard vocabulary of project components includes project, subproject, system, subsystem, element, subelement, subsubelement, content, material, location set, location, and sublocation. Locations are mapped onto the components project through to material. The PCBS provides a robust and flexible hierarchical description of a construction project. The user can model the project in many ways and at varying levels of detail. The U M L static structure diagram of PCBS hierarchy is included in Appendix-G. The predefined vocabulary of project components is elaborated upon in the following subsection. 3.2.1 Terminology Project The project component in the PCBS hierarchy provides an envelope that contains all physical entities and process locations related to the project. It allows the user to define attributes that apply to the overall project. Subproject For better understanding and control purposes a project can be divided into self-contained entities called subprojects. Each subproject may have its own location set containing locations of the subproject PCBS components. System A system can be defined as the collection of project components within a subproject or project. For example, on a high-rise project the superstructure can be modeled as a 23 system. Similarly, the mechanical and electrical systems can be modeled as separate systems in a PCBS hierarchy. Subsystem A subsystem can be defined as the self-contained system within a system. For example, the vertical transportation system, sprinkler system, and H V A C system are self-contained systems, which can be modeled as subsystems under the mechanical system. Similarly, vertical elements and horizontal elements of the superstructure could be modeled as subsystems of the superstructure system. Element A n element refers to a physical component of the project. It can also be defined as the collection of a type of physical components. For example, an individual column can be referred to as an element or all of the columns of a specific type (e.g., all round architectural finish column) or the collection of all columns independent of type can be referred to as an element. In general, one is not interested in examining individual components in the PCBS. The detailed information for individual instances of an element type may be found on the project's drawings. Subelement A subelement can be defined as a physical component or a group of physical components within a certain element category. For example, a group of round columns or rectangular columns could be the subelement listed under a category of element called "columns". Subsubelement A subsubelement can be defined as a physical component or a group of physical components that belongs to the subelement component. For example, a group of spandrel beams or beams belong to a particular slab-bay (which is a subelement). Content Content describes a collection of ingredients in a higher-level component. For example, the element column has content concrete that is a collection of aggregate, cement, water, admixtures, etc. Material Material refers to the specific material input of the content. For example, the aggregate of a concrete mix could be defined as the material of the content concrete. 24 Location set A location set can be defined as the collection of physical or process locations of the project or a subproject. For example, the subproject high-rise tower can have its location set containing floor locations. Similarly, a bridge project can have its project location set containing pier and span locations. Location Location can be defined as the physical entity where the project component is present or a step in an administrative process. For example, main floor, first floor, second floor, third floor, etc. are the locations in the location set of a high-rise project or subproject, whereas prepare shop drawings, review shop drawings, fabricate, and ship are the steps in a procurement process. Sublocation Sublocation is defined as the part of physical entity called location. It allows a richer representation of the spatial dimension. For example, grid lines " A " to " C " or lobby space can form sublocations in a high-rise building. The concept of sublocations has yet to be fully exploited in the PCBS and other aspects of the representation. Attributes Attributes are defined as the quantitative or qualitative descriptors used to represent the physical properties of all PCBS component types (Chevallier, 1998). For example, formwork quantity and rebar quantity are the quantitative attributes, while surface finish and soil type are qualitative attributes. Qualitative attributes can be expressed either in linguistic or boolean terms. 3.2.2 Example Project We modeled a residential high-rise tower project under construction using the PCBS hierarchy. The project consists of a 23 storey residential high-rise tower, three storey town house units, and a four level underground parking structure. The floor plate of the tower is approximately 7000 ft2 and the total floor area to the project is 260,000 ft2. • The project was divided into two subprojects: the high-rise residential tower subproject and the town house subproject. These subprojects were self-contained entities because the schedule for town house construction was not dependent on the high-rise tower except for start and finish mile stones of the residential complex. 25 • The focus of this thesis is on methods associated with constructing the concrete superstructure of high-rise buildings. Hence, only the superstructure system of the building was modeled using the PCBS hierarchy. The superstructure system was further divided into the vertical components subsystem (Columns, walls, core, etc.) and horizontal components subsystem. Shown in figures 3-1 and 3-2 is a partially expanded PCBS hierarchy for the tower studied. Figure 3-3 depicts the attributes assigned to the column elements, and shows the mapping of locations onto columns for one of the attributes along with a specification of attribute values. REPCON 5 .20 -PROJ03 \TEST - [Project PCBS] | File Pro]ect_View .TJeQjijIgteiJJigffl) S t a n d a r d s , RCBS^ Window- Help •6 tb & B GIA Project Resident ial High-Rise Project SiteLoc Location Set Site Location Tower Subproject High Rise Tower 3- TLoc Location Set High Rise Tower Locations B S u p S T R System High rise Tower Super S t ruc tu re : B B VertEle B Cols Subsystem Vertical Components Element Columns , i - C o l m l Subelement Column A • Colm2 Subelement Column B : Colm3 Subelement Column C j C o l m 4 Subelement Column D ; Colm5 Subelement Column E ;-• Colm6 Subelement Column F Colm7 Subelement Column G • Colm8 Subelement Column H : Colm9 Subelement Column K Co lmlO Subelement Column L B - Core Element High Rise Tower Core I ' S z o n e Content Shear zones of rebar S - C W a l l l Subelement Core Wall A E C W a l l 2 Subelement Core Wall B ! C o r n r l SubSubelement Corner | — Cornr2 SubSubelement Corner -•••-Opengl SubSubelement Opening : CWal l3 Subelement Core Wall C | C W a l K Subelement Core Wall D ]~CWal l5 Subelement Core Wall E ffi CWai l6 Subelement Core Wall F B ShWall Element Shear Walls Szone Content Shear zones oF rebar !•••• SWa l l l Subelement Shear Wall A - non typical walls at GFL , SWall2 Subelement Shear Wall B - non typical walls at 2nd floor j SWal l3 Subelement Shear Wall M B S W a l W Subelement Shear Wall A1 C o n r l SubSubelement Corner !•:•• S W a l l 5 , . Subelement Shear Wall B l : | • SWall6 Subelement Shear Wall C I I- SWall7 Subelement Shear Wall D l -ffi SWal l8 Subelement Shear Wall E l S SWal l9 Subelement Shear Wall F l : SWa l l lO Subelement Shear Wall G l I SWa l l l 1: . Subelement Shear Wall H I R S W a l l l 2 Subelement Shear Wall M l Figure 3.1. PCBS hierarchy (part 1) of the example project. 26 i ^ R E P C O N . r i .?n -PIUIJu3\ lEST | Pro ject PCBS] File Pro jec t_View. . T e f . P i a t e j i i e w Standards .' P C B S - W i n d o w Help 32r <:B IKS r-l S W a l l l 2 O f s t l C o n r l B S W a l l l 3 E l SWal l 14 ffl 5 W a l l l 5 B S W a l l l 6 i H - S W a l l l 7 • S W a l l l 8 5 W a l l l 9 S SWal l20 i SWal l21 EB SWal l22 • E F H o r i E l e B - S l a b Subelement Shear Wall M l . Subsube lement Of fse t Subsube lement Corner Subelement Shear Wall S I Subelement Shear Wall T l Subelement Shear Wall U I Subelement Shear Wall VI Subelement Shear Wall W l Subelement Shear-Wal l C 2 -Subelement- Shear Wall C 3 1 Subelement - Shear Wall M2 Subelement Shear Wall U2 Subelement Shear Wall V2 Subsys tem Horizontal Componen ts -Element High Rise Floor Slab E l S IBay l Subelement S labBay A S l B a n d l Subsube lement . S labband B - S l B a y 2 Subelement S labBay B - S l B a n d l Subsube lement S labband fci S lBay3 Subelement S labBay E • S l B a n d l Subsube lement S labband - a S lBay4 Subelement S labBay D ••• - a S lBay5 Subelement S labBay F . 1+] S lBay6 Subelement S labBay G - . EB-S lBay? ^ Subelement SlabBay H - S - S l B a y S Subelement -SlabBay-I-• • B SIBay9 Subelement S labBay A1 . ••:<= • •'. ffl-SIBaylO Subelement S labBay B l a S IBay l 1 Subelement S labBay C I H P S l B a y 12 Subelement S labBay D l EH- S l B a y l 3 Subelement S labBay E l SlBay 14 Subelement S labBay F l : SlBay 15 Subelement S labBay G l -.- i- SlBay 16 Subelement S labBay H I . . . •-. S I B a y l ? Subelement S labBay J l SlBay 18 Subelement S labBay K-1 SlBay 19 Subelement S labBay L l , ;•- SubSTR Sys tem High Rise Tower Sub Structure -Lowrise "Subproject Town Houses • . . Figure 3.2. PCBS hierarchy (part 2) of the example project. • The vertical PCBS components such as, columns and walls were further categorized according to the "type o f components present on all locations of the subproject. The columns are categorized according to their length (dimension in x direction). The walls are categorized according to their length (dimension in x direction) and subcomponents. These types of columns and walls were modeled as the column subelement and wall subelement. As shown in figure 3.1, Column A , Column B, etc. are the types of columns while shear wall A l , shear wall B l , etc. are the types of shear walls. Similarly core element and slab element were further categorized in terms 27 of the subelement constitutes core walls and slab-bays, respectively. The description of slab in terms of constituent slab-bays was useful for modeling the possible orientation of the flying trusses or flytables. A point to note from figure 3.3 is that the existence of an element at a particular location is dictated by assigning values to the attributes against the desired location. These values can be assigned using various conditions such as less than, greater than, within range, etc. The aggregation of quantitative attribute values to a higher level is possible only in the case of inherited attributes, since the aggregation decision is made at a higher-level element (Chevallier, 1998). (c) PCBS Planned Attrihiih- Vrtlue (b) -—I. :Path. G1A Towa.SupSTR.VertE!e.Core. Attribute: Length,*.*^" . Value Type Quantitative., Unt ft ,: Q}Sum values (oral locations; Location Ranqe 1? Value 22 Add •K. Cancel PPREPCON 5 . 2 0 - P R D J 0 3 \ T E S T - [Pro jec t PCBS] File Project_Vtew Terfljjlatej/iew; Standards PCB5 Window SI "]M" 1 • * m s i Quality ' Path: GIA.Towet.SupSTR.VertEle.Core. j Code:' |CWall4 i-Type: ISubeement Description' jCore Wall D 3 (Attribute Descriptions- Inherited Attrrbute?l(jClass.1 Concrete Quantity Surface Area Time Frame for Concreting Time Frame for Rebar Time Frame for Formwork Shape Slump Range Max. Size of Aggregate Rate of Pour Height Width Nurr>™ «' n ™ ^ It YES YES Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S YES Y E S YES YES YES YES B GIA B Area Properties Area Properties Duration Property Duration PropertiJ Duration PropertiJ Physical Propertial Concrete Properto Concrete PropertitL— Concrete Properties Dimension Properties Dimension Properties Dimension Properties Project Residential High-Rise Project SiteLoc Location Set Site Location Tower Subproject High Rise Tower E • TLoc Location Set High Rise Tower Locations B • SupSTR System High rise Tower Super Structure fi- VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components b' Cols Element Columns S 'Core Element High Rise Tower Core I Szone Content Shear zones of rebar fiCWalll Subelement Core Wall A Cornrl Subsubelement Corner : Opengl Subsubelement Openging B CWall2 Subelement Core Wall B j - C o r n r l Subsubelement Corner • : Cornr2 Subsubelement Comer Opengl Subsubelement Opening I™ CWall3 Subelement Core Wall C Subelement Core Wall D : CWali5 Subelement Core Wall E frCWalte Subelement Core Wall F H-ShWall Element Shear Walls B- HoriEle Subsystem Horizontal Components S - Slab Element High Rise Floor Slab • SubSTR System High Rise Tower Sub Structure Lowrise Subproject Town Houses ft ft ft ft Nn P Inhe'it attribute dern.t on I'on above level Add Delete | Edit OK. Cancel ' ' («) Figure 3.3. (a) PCBS component hierarchy with Subelement "Core Wall D " ; (b) Subelement "Core Wall D " with attribute "Length"; (c) The value of attribute "Length" at location range " G F L - 23" showing existence of the component at that location range. • Project site attributes relevant to decisions on construction methods are described as shown in figure 3.4 for the PCBS component location named "Site location". These 28 attributes include length, width, area, site open space width, horizontal formwork storage area, vertical formwork storage area, rebar storage area, parking area, etc. PP REPCON 5.20-PROJ03\TEST - [Project PCBS] rjS>j,File> Project i^ iew^ Isroglgfej^iev^ Standards,, P C B S - Windoi (b) Project PCBS H - GIA Project Residential High-Rise Project SiteLoc Location Set Site Location E! Tower Subproject High Rise Tower Wi TLoc Location Set High Rise Tower Locations S -5up5TR System High rise Tower Super Structure 6-Ver tE le Subsystem Vertical .Components SB Cols Element Columns " ' S i Core Element High Rise Tower Core rJj-ShWall Element Shear Walls H - HoriEle Subsystem Horizontal Components S- Slab Element High Rise Floor Slab SubSTR System High Rise Tower Sub Structure Lowrise Subproject Town Houses Attributes Path: GIA. Valuer j Standard PCBS Records | Activities |j Pay items ] Qualty Mgt | Changes ] Proiect Records ]; Memo j Code SiteLoc Description' |Site Location Type J. . • Attribute 3 Description ' |i Inherited Attribute Class B/Q/L 1 Lint NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Width NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Site Storage Area NO Site Loc Properties. Q ft2 Open Space Length NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Parking Space Length NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Parking Space Width NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Rebar Storage Space Length NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Rebar Storage Space Width NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Rebar Fabrication Space Length NO Site Loc Properties • Q ft Rebar Fabrication Space Width NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Horizontal Formwork Storage Space Length NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Horizontal Formwork Storage Space Width NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Vertical Formwork Storage Space Length NO Site Loc Properties Q ft Vertical Formwork Storage Space Width NO Site Loc Properties Q ft «r • • I • - - - J — Inherit attribute definition from above level Add | Delete | Edit OK Cancel Figure 3.4. (a) PCBS component hierarchy with Location component "Site location"; (b) Location component "Site Location" with attributes including "Length". 29 3.2.3 Additional Features Desired for the PCBS Hierarchy In order to support rule-based reasoning about a method's feasibility, additional features desired for the PCBS module include the following: • The knowledge management tool is meant for rule-based feasibility reasoning for comprehensive decision support. The repetitive use of standard method templates is possible by using standard descriptors for defining the project PCBS. Therefore a desirable new feature would be to have classes of standard attributes that can be used when defining PCBS components. This feature was added as part of the current work. • Standardization of the PCBS component code wil l assist in avoiding redundancy in the reasoning process by allowing the user to write generic feasibility rules that can be used on a variety of projects. For example, elements of type slab-bay could have a standard PCBS code such as SIBayl, SlBay2, etc. so that a generic rule can be written to check the feasibility of a method with respect to all the PCBS components coded "SIBay 'JC' ". This feature is further illustrated in section 5.8.1 on rule writing. Presently, the system does not offer any help in standardization of the PCBS component code; it is left to the user's discretion. • Another important desired feature is selective inheritance. The present PCBS structure is a "quasi-object oriented and quasi-hierarchical" listing of project components (Udaipurwala, 1997). Attributes can be inherited from a higher level component to lower level components. However, one either inherits all or none of the attributes. Thus as an example, while describing the type of columns e.g., round columns or rectangular columns under column element, the inheritance of attributes from the element level to the subelement level creates redundant attributes such as the length and width attributes inherited for a round column. • Arguably, the most desired modification is the addition of a seventh level in the hierarchy i.e., a sub-subelement level. For example, in assessing the feasibility of the column mounted flytable formwork method, it is essential to make sure that the slab-bays do not have a down-turn spandrel beam or one-way beams or two-way beams. Column-mounted jacks can lower the flytables only a few inches and cannot be used if beams are present in the slab (Heinz)(Holm). To reason about such feasibility knowledge, we need to model PCBS component beams or spandrel beams under the corresponding subelement slab-bay in the PCBS hierarchy. The additional level under subelement slab-bay i.e., the subsubelement would help in describing the PCBS hierarchy more comprehensively. Thus the subsubelement can be defined as a physical component or a group of physical components that belongs to the subelement component. This feature was added as the part of the current work. A n important question when modeling the physical aspects of a project is how much detailed representation is really required in order to perform rule-based reasoning. If too much detail is required, the likelihood of the approach being used in practice is reduced dramatically. In this thesis and for the proof of concept example, a relatively detailed 30 PCBS description was used. The most appropriate level of detail can only be determined after more knowledge is captured from industry personnel regarding the thought process used to assess a method's feasibility. Experience to date suggests that a method's feasibility depends on a number of determinants, which could be obtained by performing detailed checks on relevant physical attributes of the project's physical components. 3.2.4 PCBS Standard Side and Project Side The project side and standard side are two important aspects of the PCBS. The standard PCBS side allows the user to form standard PCBS components and hierarchies, which can be used on future projects. The standard side is used to list PCBS components as well as to store knowledge and experience regarding past projects. The standard components listed can be copied over to create a project PCBS hierarchy. For example, a subproject hierarchy on the standard side can be copied to the project level or subproject level in the hierarchy. Standard side PCBS components do not have values assigned to their attributes because the values are project-specific. 3.3 Method and Resource Breakdown Structure The Method and resource breakdown structure is also a semantically predefined hierarchy. Definitions of each of the components in the M & R B S hierarchy are as follows: 3.3.1 Terminology Method Statement A paper-based method statement is a formal description of how a physical component of a facility will be constructed. Such a statement is similar to a "work method" description in ISO 9001-2000. In the M & R B S hierarchy, we define method statement as a hierarchy containing basic-building blocks i.e., operations, methods and resources to be used in construction of a physical component, collection of physical components, or complete facility. Thus, a method statement can have different scopes i.e. a user can formulate a method statement about "constructing a typical floor of a high-rise" or about "constructing a specific component type (e.g. core)". The operations, methods, and resources are chosen accordingly. A method statement has implicit in it a specific context. Operation A n operation can be defined as the contextual reference to the activity in the schedule i.e. an operation could be mapped one-to-one on an activity in the project's schedule. A n operation is context sensitive i.e., the operation "Form superstructure column" would be different from "Form a bridge pier". Thus operation depends on the PCBS component, 31 and the method being used must relate to that context. Operations are not listed in the standard M & R B S component library. Operations can be described in a way that dictates the granularity of a method statement. For example, an operation can be defined as component specific i.e., "Form Columns" or it can be more broadly defined as "Form vertical elements", which includes walls, columns, and cores. A too broadly defined operation is not helpful for method feasibility testing. For example, it would be better to define three operations (Build columns, build walls, and build core) and have a method associated with each in order to test for feasibility of the overall method statement. Method A method can be defined as a standard approach, a novel approach, or a proprietary technology used for the construction of a project component type. Although various other researchers define construction methods by representing the processes and associated resources (e.g., (Rankin, 2000), (Jagbeck, 1994), (Syal, 1992)), we explicitly define methods along with their processes and resources. A method is explicitly described by a set of parameters and conditions. The process aspect of method is described with the help of one or more fragnets. A fragnet is an ordered or non-ordered set of tasks associated with a method. For example a flying truss method is associated with a typical formwork activity sequence, which can be represented as a fragnet i.e., strip, rollout, fly-up, set the flying truss, and form deck. Resources used in support of a method can be listed explicitly under the method. Resource Resources are defined as the entities that get used or consumed during execution of a construction method. A resource in the M & R B S hierarchy deals with the physical inputs required to carryout tasks, methods, and operations (Russell et al., 1999). The resource is described with the help of attributes in the form of parameters and conditions, which in general are not context or application specific. Parameters and Conditions Parameters and conditions are descriptors used to define different physical and production characteristics, respectively, of methods and resources. Parameters are the descriptors used to describe physical properties of the methods or resources. Conditions are the descriptors used to model feasibility conditions and requirements of the methods and resources. For example, the truss height of the flying truss resource is specified using a parameter. Feasibility conditions for the method "Flying Truss Formwork", such as the "required storey height range" and "minimum reuse required" are modeled using conditions. Parameters and conditions can be expressed in terms of quantitative, linguistic, or boolean value descriptors. Quantitative values can be described using less than, greater than, within range, and equal to properties. 32 3.3.2 Example of a Method Statement We have constructed an example method statement for construction of a typical floor in the high-rise tower studied, as shown in figure 3.5. Physical components treated are walls, columns, core, and slab. Observations of importance are as follows: • The level of detail in the method statement (right hand side of figure 3.5) is dictated by the operations described under it. We have used element specific operations such as, form column, rebar core, and concrete slab. The descriptions of operations are dependent upon the desired level of detail in the construction schedule because the operations are contextual references to construction schedule activities. File Project_View .:. . • Standards Standard M&RBS Window Help dtfMJH&l&ldil Dl,rj|6|tt]!£hi|4|e| fI Template Tree Structure Description Conv Sewer Replacement-M.,, Construction of typical f loor. . . Concrete Placement with Pu . . . Method Statement for Cons.. . Trenchless (Microtunnelling)... Trenchless(Microtunneling)... Pump House Construction fo.. . PumpHouse Construction of Typical Floo... Construction of typical f loor. . . Gang Form High Rise Concrete pumping... Slickline pumping Supporting... Placing Flatwork - Slabplaci. . . Excavation Support Techniq... Wall Forming - Gang Form S . . . Excavation or Trenching Tec... Shield Tunnelling MT Method... MT involving Soil Jetting at t... Dewatering Techniques Column Forming Techniques Column and Beam Forming T... Rebar Methods Wall Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming - Flyforms Rebar Placement Methods Slab & Wall Forming Techniq... Core Forming Techniques Concrete Pumping - Line Pump Concrete Pumping - Boom P, . . Concrete Placing Techniques Separate Placer Boom Moun... Formwork Material Resource Concrete Pumps Concrete Slickline pumping a . . . Concrete Placing Buckets Placing Boom Mast Concrete Belt Conveyors General-use equipment use. . . _ *] " Jyss Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Statement Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Method Class Resource Class Resource Class Resource Class Resource Class Resource Class Resource Class Resource Class ^{Construction of typical floor ol a high-rise n B•• ROOT Method Statement High-rise Superstructure Construction E-3 - FormCol Operation Formwork for Columns B- WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork . j.... WGC Resource Wooden Gangf orm for Column ! • FCrew Resource Formwork Crew fi-RebarCol Operation Construction of typical floor of a High-rise B • PreFab Method Rebar Prefabrication ; RCrew Resource Rebar Crew B ConcCol Operation Concrete placing for Columns B CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket {••••Crane Resource Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhead Tower Crane | - Bucket Resource Concrete Bucket - Upright '•- CCrew Resource Crane and Bucket concrete placement crew fi•• FormWall Operation Formwork for Walls B WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork . '. B : RebarWall Operation Rebar placing for Walls f£ PPreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication 19 ConcWall Operation Concrete placement for Walls -. &~ CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket ' . ;-y'. E3- FormCore Operation Formwork for Core \ E - AJumpFm Method Aluminum Waler Jumpform. * B RebarCore Operation Rebar placement for Core ES" PPreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication [=1 ConcCore Operation Concrete placement for Core E l CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket B • FormSlab Operation Formwork for Slab B F I T r u s s Method Flying Truss Formwork for Slab : FTruss Resource Flying Truss Formwork for Slab j - C r a n e Resource Piener Hammerhead Tower Crane =••- FCrew Resource Formwork Crew B RebarSlab Operation Rebar Placement for Slab B • ReAsm . Method Rebar Assembly B-ConcSlab Operation Concrete placement for Slab B CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket Figure 3.5. M & R B S standard library with component classes and an example Method Statement hierarchy with operations, methods, and resources. 33 • The methods selected for each operation are listed under the relevant operation. A method is copied under operations along with its attributes, multimedia records, memos, resources, and associated fragnets from the appropriate method class in the library. A fragnet is a set of standard tasks specific to the construction method. These tasks can be used as project schedule activities. However, we agree with the notion of a two level activity generation put forth by Ganeshan et al. (1996) that the first level of activities are the operations (which are independent of methods used) in the method statement and the second level activities are generated out of fragnets (which are dependent on methods used) associated with method. Generation of a hierarchical construction schedule at the proper level is outside the scope of this thesis. Also shown in figures 3.6, the operations in a method statement hierarchy and the selection of a particular concrete placing method from the Concrete Placing Techniques Method Class. SPREPCON S.2O-PRO303\TCST File "Pro)ett_View- Tr-mj^ rgLVgyj..Standards jaandardjMaRBS 1 Window Help Template Description -A Conv Sewer Replace! Construction of typi; Concrete Placement! Method Statement fv trenchtess (Microtut Trenchless(Microtun Pump House Constn; PumpHouse I Construction of Typi Construction of typi; Gang Form j High Rise Concrete |: Slickline pumping Sufi Placing Flatwork- Si Excavation Support! Wall Forming - Gang! Excavation or Trenci Shield Tunnelling MTjl MT involving Soil Jet] Dewatering Techniqi Column Forming Tecj Column and Beam Fi Rebar Methods J Wall Forming Technii Slab Forming Technij Slab Forming Techni; Slab Forming - Flyfol Rebar Placement Me[ Slab & Wall Forminglli Core Forrnhg Technij Concrete Pumping -IA Concrete Pumping -:|J Concrete Placing Tel |' Tree Structure Construr^ion of typic B - ROOT . Method itai Report S FormCol Operation Fo.mworivfor ccj, i B - SteelMPanl Method AH steel moddf j - FormCrew Resource FormwtL Add at same level Add .it *:i h>v**l Copy standard component to sar~e 'evel Delete tun Check Logic . SteelPanel Resource All steel modular panels column formwork B RebarCol Operatbn Rebar Placing for columns B-PreFab' Method Prefabricated rebar placement for column ConcCof Operation Concrete placing for columns B FormWall Operation Formwork of walls B AtuWGangF Method Aluminum waller gang form B - RebarWall Operation Rebar placement for wall B-- PartPreFab Method Partial Prefabrication for wall '>-•• ReberCrew Resource Rebar placement crew B - ConcWail Operation Concrete placement for wall ) B SepBoom Method Separate placing boom method B • FormCore Operation Formwork for core B - AluWGangF^^Metho form (=]•• RebarCo]| | B-PartF E-3-- ConcCori | B - SpBo B - FormStab | B-CotFl! BRebarSIa: j B Rebc' B- ConcS!ab|: a- spBo" (b) S e l e c t M & R B S i t e m t o c o p y , H • Concrete Pumping - Boom Pump Method Class S•• Concrete Placing Techniques Method Class • ROOT Method Class Concrete Placing Methods S - Plac-Boom Method Concrete Placing with Truck Mounted Placing i ^ J g E B i s B l i l i M S j— SepBoom Resource Separate Placing Boom j BoomMast Resource Boom Mast TG 10 Tower !— Line Pump Resource Line Pump El Belt-Conv Method Concrete Placing with Belt Conveyor Boom rh n.D I, l l l l l l i i Figure 3.6. (a) Method Statement hierarchy with Operation "Concrete placing for columns"; (b) Copying standard Method "Separate Placing Boom" and its resources from Method Class "Concrete Placing Techniques". 34 • After the selection of methods, appropriate resources are selected from the library of resources. A method can have a number of resources listed under it. For example, the method Flying truss formwork (for slab forming) requires resources such as flying truss, crane, and formwork crew. Methods and resources are defined further by their parameters and feasibility conditions. Shown in figure 3.7 are some of the parameters and conditions for the method Flying truss formwork. A n explicit listing of the feasibility factors knowledge related to concrete construction methods assembled as part of this thesis is given in the Appendix-A. («) EPREPCON .S.20-l>Rmn3\TEST (c) M&RBS PAI in if tn File Project_Vtew ress^gfcgj^g^, Standards Standard M&RBS 'Window ,Ke!p 131*1 2 | ^ N £ l O T S i r f W • 'Template Tree Structure - -Template Constructor! of.typical liow of a Higfwise Pa*: ROOT F. r>,o :i::ParanetoCTtJRate of Production ' Class, production Data 7»] Value Tot Q.vi'tst.-re i1 Un*Abbrevabon:. jslt/manhi . StarrfardVaJue "3 R jiCo.. ItSldValuel I EQ 70 ' |[SMVdlue2 add fietete 'Ed* iv Sewer Replacement-M.. istruction of typical floor.. terete Placement with Pu.. thod Statement for Cons.,, ncNess (Microtunnelling).. !nchless(MJcrotunneling).,. np House Construction fo.. npHouse istruction of Typical Ffoo.., istruction of typical floor.. ig Form h Rise Concrete pumpmg.. klme pumping Supporting., cing Flatwork - Slabplaci.. ravation Support Techniq., ill Forming - Gang Form 5... :avation or Trenching Tec. eld Tunnelling MT Method., involving Soil Jetting at t.. watering Techniques umn Forming Techniques lumn and Beam Forming T.. "Col Rebar Methods WaD Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming - Flyforms Rebar Placement Methods Standard MM' l is El ROOT Method Statement High-rise Superstructure Construction EJ3 FormCol Operation Formworkfor Columns, ; if]- RebarCol Operation Construction of typical floor of a High-rise GJ3 ConcCol Operation Concrete placing for Columns FormWall Operation Formwork for Walls 9 RebarWall Operation Rebar placing for Walls B - PPreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication L - RCrew Resource Rebar Crew E3- ConcWall Operation Concrete placement for Walls S CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket !•- Crane Resource Tower Crane Peiher Hammerhead Tower Crane Bucket Resource Concrete Bucket - Upright i CCrew Resource Crane and Bucket concrete placement crew FormCore Operation Formwork for Core : B " RebarCore Operation Rebar placement for Core " -i B " PPreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication K RCrew Resource Rebar Crew &• ConcCore .Operation -Concrete placement for Core B FormSlab Operation Formwork for Slab ' R | j j | | | p M ^ j-... FTruss Resource Flying Truss Formwork for Slab .-Crane Resource Piener Hammerhead Tower Crane • FCrew Resource Formwork Crew rD D n h ^ M . r^nor^nn i?„h-»r placement for Slab.\ i r r i n f g | o r s i a b . - • y--: (b) Pjrjr'K'.-j/Lu'iCij'i: j f ijg ici jjcusib JIIKJCSJ Muk Media-i™ od | P-Z3S | M ru | ^Template:: Construction of.typical flcorof a Higtwrse Path ROOT FormSlab.,. . ' , , , C°de: jHTruss ^3'^ Desctiption:.JFIying Truss Formwork for Slab" Type:, |Metnod y-.j^JJ*$ '. iURti l f" -Terrtplate:**jSlab Forming Techniques Jjj.- Goto URL Path: ROOT Parameters/Conditions Description < " • ' << * • •II..; H •ass . ! ' - : VB/QA. l,Un* ' - ' 1 [Rate ol Production .^^ ^^^^^^^^ 1^ N. p.. Production Data Q ftht Mm. Reuse Required N. c. Production Data Q No. Site Assembly Space Length Requited . N. Q. Tech. Feasibility Q ft Site Assembly Space Width Required N. C Tech. Feasibility Q ft Mm. Assembly Space Area Required N. n. Tech. Feasibility Q ft2 Economical Length of SlabBay N. c Designer's Spec . Q ft Economical Width of SlabBay N. c. Designer's Spec Q ft Storey Height Range N. c Designer's Spec . Q •. -.- "ft F~< Inherit attribute d" • •rnfciiiiho.'" i-rf» Add ,0K Figure 3.7. (a) Method Statement hierarchy with Method "Flying Truss Formwork"; (b) Method "Flying Truss Formwork" with its parameters and conditions; (c) The value of parameter "Rate of Production". 35 • As part of the thesis work, method and resource classes were developed for formwork, rebar placement work, and concrete placement work. Some of these are shown in the left hand side of figure 3.5. 3.3.3 Additional Features Desired for the M&RBS Hierarchy During the course of this work, some desirable enhancements to the existing M & R B S framework were identified, as follows: • Similar to the PCBS hierarchy, for uniformity in describing M & R B S components, standard classes of parameters and conditions would be helpful for the speedy description of M & R B S components and to assist in avoiding redundancy in the reasoning process due to a mismatch of attributes names. Presently, this feature is not implemented. • Standardization of the M & R B S component code is desired in order to construct generic rule files that can be used on various projects for different combinations of standard methods and resources. For example, the Flying truss formwork method is used for slab forming operation. While listing a method under an operation, care should be taken to use a standard code (e.g. "FlyTruss") so that the generic rule (without any project specific customization) can reason about the method's feasibility by considering appropriate parameter or condition value. Presently, the system does not offer any help in standardization of M & R B S component codes; it is left to the user's discretion. 3.3.4 M&RBS Standard Side and Project Side The M & R B S hierarchy exists on the project side in the form of a project method statement that is the collection of methods and resources to be used to construct the various parts of the project. Multiple method statements can exist on the project side. On the standard side, M & R B S modules called classes are used to organize knowledge pertaining to methods and resources. The left hand side of figure 3.5 shows method statements, method classes, and resource classes. In conclusion, the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies are robust and flexible enough to use as a part of knowledge management tool for method's selection. Over time, enhancements will be to the hierarchies to further assist in the feasibility reasoning process. 36 Chapter 4 Methods for Concrete High-Rise Construction 4.1 Introduction In this chapter we review various available construction methods for concrete high-rise superstructure construction and the factors affecting their selection. Formwork, Concrete placement, and Rebar placement are the activities of interest. Extensive use of the literature combined with semi-structured interviews with construction personnel provided the source for the knowledge base assembled. Details of feasibility considerations are compiled in Appendix-A. How these conditions are represented electronically is shown in this chapter through a number of screen captures. 4.2 Formwork Methods Formwork is one of the most important activity categories for concrete construction. Formwork is regarded as the single largest cost component in high-rise concrete construction. It accounts for 40-60 % of the cost of concrete frame construction (Hanna, 1998). The pace of concrete frame construction is often controlled by formwork related activities that are generally on the critical path of a high-rise project schedule. Thus, selection of appropriate formwork methods for the various physical components becomes an important decision problem because of their time and cost consequences (as well as quality considerations) for the overall project. Various formwork systems are used on high-rise construction projects. They can be classified in two different ways; according to the resources they use and according to the elements they form. For this thesis we adopted an element-based classification of formwork systems e.g., column forming methods, wall forming methods, core forming methods, and slab forming methods. Furthermore, under the element-based classification we adopted a resource-based sub classification such as Wooden gang form, Aluminum gang form, etc. (see figure 4.1). The classification was made for the purpose of organizing feasibility factors knowledge collected from the literature and from semi-structured interviews with construction industry personnel. Interviews were held with a formwork subcontractor, a formwork designer, and a site superintendent in Vancouver (Lower Mainland area). The list of individuals interviewed is provided in Appendix-A. The surnames of the individuals consulted are cited in round brackets in the discussion that follows. They helped in understanding the thought process behind formwork method selection and in synthesizing factors affecting method selection and feasibility. The factors affecting the method selection are summarized in section 4.2.1. 37 Column Formwork Systems Classification Conventional Wooden Formwork Column Formwork Steel Framed Modular Formwork t „; -.;--,;,yJ All Steel Modular Formwork Wooden Gang Formwork Aluminum Waler Gang Formwork All Steel Gang Formwork Wall Formwork Systems Classification Core Formwork Systems Classification Conventional Wooden Formwork Core Formwork Steel Framed Modular Formwork 1 All Steel Modular Formwork Wooden Gang /Jump Formwork lM' Li Aluminum Gang /Jump Formwork All Steel Gang /Jump Formwork , ; Self-Climbing Formwork f x Slip Formwork Slab Formwork Systems Classification Conventional Wooden Formwork Slab Formwork Systems Conventional Metal Formwork n Handset Formwork J L Flying Truss Formwork J L Column Mounted Flytable Formwork Tunnel Formwork Figure 4.1. Classification of formwork systems. 38 4.2.1 Factors Affecting Formwork Method Selection • Element specific characteristics The selection of an appropriate formwork method depends on the structural characteristics of the physical element type being formed. Gang forming applications for column or wall elements need enough repetition or reuse of gang formwork panels to be justified. Repetition or reuse is essentially governed by size uniformity of the physical elements and their availability on the same floor or other floor of the high-rise project. Element specific characteristics of importance include length, width, height, surface area, storey height, etc. For example, according to Newell and Heinz, the Flying truss formwork system is economically feasible when at least 5 to 6 reuses are available. Similarly, for the method Column-mounted flytable to be feasible the vertical supporting sides of the slab-bay should be parallel and support should be uniformly available along the length of the slab-bay (Wallace, 1997) (Holm). • Resource Availability & Characteristics Resource availability plays an important role in formwork methods selection. The Gang form method needs a crane, which is a critical resource for lifting and transporting gang form panels. In some cases, the crane lifting capacity dictates the maximum size of the gang form panel to be used on the job site (Hurd, 1995). Also, the economical size of a flying truss table is determined according to the available lifting capacity of the crane on the site and the weight of the flying truss table assembly (Newell). • Concrete Pour Characteristics Placing of concrete faster in formwork can help achieve shorter construction cycle times. The rate of pour is an important characteristic for selection of a suitable vertical formwork system, which is expressed in unit ft/hr or m/hr. The pour pressure or the lateral pressure capacity of a vertical element formwork system depends on the rate of pour. The lateral pour pressure in turn dictates the required tie spacing for the formwork. For proper selection of the formwork system, such as a gang form system, one should know the lateral pressure it can take (Backe, 1986). It is common practice that formwork contractors ask specialist consultants to design formwork for "full head" or a specific rate of pour (Newell) depending upon the desired duration of the construction cycle. • Site Properties Access to the site and the site size are among the major influencing factors for formwork method selection. Proper site access is important for delivering preassembled gang form systems or jump form systems. Similarly, site formwork assembly space is required for preassembly of the flyforms for slab formwork (Young). On a constrained 39 site these trussforms can be built in place i.e., on the floor itself, but a significant number of crane hours are needed for material transport (Young). On the other hand, truss forms can be preassembled and transported to the site. However, in such cases additional transportation cost is involved. Vertical formwork systems and horizontal formwork systems need sufficient formwork storage space on the jobsite. • Time Allowance The rate of production is an important factor for selection of formwork systems. Many proprietary formwork systems with special features are available in the market, which help in increasing the rate of formwork production by faster assembling, stripping, and recycling. On a high-rise construction project, a general contractor thinks of construction cycles in terms of number of days e.g., a 4-day construction cycle or 5-day construction cycle. To achieve shorter construction cycle times, faster recycling of formwork is of critical importance. Hence the available time frame for a formwork operation in the construction cycle proposed becomes a key factor in the selection of formwork system. • Cost Cost of a formwork system is arguably the most important decision making factor for formwork method selection. The contractor has various options of renting, leasing, or purchasing formwork systems. In making the decision as to which option to choose, the contractor has to consider various aspects such as the material cost, labor cost, formwork handling cost, repair and maintenance cost, and potential future uses. • Other Issues Various other issues related to formwork method selection are highlighted by researchers such as organizational policy decisions regarding renting and purchasing, and the organization's attitude towards cost, time, and quality aspects of construction (Syal, 1992). Weather conditions can also affect formwork selection because they can delay formwork stripping time, which in turn affects its reuse and reshoring plans (Hurd, 1995). In windy regions, safety requirements such as braces and fasteners for gang form panels should be taken into consideration when selecting a formwork method (Hurd, 1991). However, for the case study high-rise project, during discussions with construction personnel we could not observe any significant piece of knowledge related to these issues. A summary of the various information categories involved in decision-making about formwork selection is presented in the figure 4.2. Based on the literature review and interviews conducted with construction industry experts, formwork method selection feasibility factors were categorized. Emphasis was placed on classifying tangible method 40 selection and feasibility factors in a tabular format. These tables are formed according to element specific formwork methods as shown in table 4.1 and table 4.2. Element Specific Characteristics e.g., Length, Width, Height, Surface Area, Storey height. Site Properties e.g., Site assembly space, Site storage space, Weather conditions. Concrete Pouriiigj Characteristics e.g., Rate of pour; Max. allowable pour pressure, Tie spacing. FORMWORK Method Selection Resource Availability & Characteristics e.g., Crane lifting capacity, Crane boom reach, Formwork crew, Flying truss table. Cost e.g., Purchase cost, Renting cost, Leasing cost, Labor cost. Other Issues e.g , Organizational issues Quality, Safety, Policy to rent or lease; Time Allowance e.g., Rate of production required, Allowable cycle time for formwork/ Figure 4.2. Factors affecting selection of formwork methods. Implementation of some of the formwork knowledge collected within the M & R B S structure defined in Chapter 3 is shown in figures 4.3 through 4.6. Figure 4.3 shows the method class for column formwork, figure 4.4 shows the method class for wall formwork, figure 4.5 shows the method class for core formwork, and figure 4.6 shows the method class for slab formwork. Sample individual methods with parameters and conditions are also shown. 41 DO T 3 o )-< O o CO g CD O X U_ CO ^ o l O i l l 0 TD o l l O o O U-ra ro 0) .O ro O) c c 0 c a) co o E a) E a) or 0 o ro a. CO c CD a. O i a) 6 ?! o >• x: -Q CO 73 nj tl •9 ° i l W to Q. g S! E -a ro a) c 0 T -TD II c v 8--° H Q 0 b ti ro o CD ii £ V "D ^ CD CO I ' CD •S3 i2 c CD c o a. E o •S3 o CL E 8 o CD •b c ro Q. (0 pu un ro 0 co J3 E 2 ro 0 o n x : CD <o o CM O I ° ' •* I II V 0 c ro Q. a. o E ro 0 CO a. CO to" T3 c ro n .a ro CO co" E ro 0 m j 0 o 55 42 T3 >? a CO O i_ — CL o o CO o Crane »-s« o c ?P CO o co to Crane CO = > c to Crane Open sp builc maneu Crane lift •o >. § >• aci o = Q. o Crane ca r-II V 8 to 1 cn Crane Open space building maneuver Crane lifting c .O = CO i E Q. CD F? O o CD 2 <» o r- c o > O) II to Cra ce ar aneu c V II A Cra ce ar aneu ie CO p CD c <" O Cra c CD Cra Q. o to CM II V i o to a> n 'nc floo lly hii oors CM Used o typical' especia rise fl c to to T— to o o> n 'no flooi II to o == V II V Used CD E Iz me nts c CD in CO CD E ristic .ft. /m of cr zquip Other » u bs) no. . *_ 0 Other 2 c GQ ze( Oth to o i_ ze( Oth ction Ch f product Requiret rce Requ Crew si 3 o CD •o £ to o ro to ro ro CD tu Q . or CC or CD 0 0 1 O i/i o o Q. CO i l l 0 = O M O I L o I 0 -> 0 55 E E = o o < U- u_ Q. c E c to 3 .£ -E ^ E < g LL co c 0 o E g U-0 CO 9 & "3 I < E u . 0 1 ^ 2 !s b u. 19 g o •§ E S o o C/3 ^ U_ 0 O - : l l d E o o O U--1 a CD E a x CO tu £ a X co 2 O) c 8 g E 0 CT 0 or 0 o ro o. co c 0 CL o 0 SI 6 E .o E | Q O OO c i 3 ! o i 43 1 200 to 400 • Size uniformity • • 80 ft./ workweek (24hr) 50-100 i • Concrete supply at rate of 20 c.y. / hr ' <= 15 • Size uniformity i i • • >= 30 10 to 12 • Crane lifting for initiallation / removal 1 7.5 to 12 No components • • • o in o 15 to 18 Crane • 8 to 16 Jumpform need platform 5 ft wide Size Uniformity 6 to 9 1200 to 1500 6 to 8 55 to 70 o r^  Crane Crane lifting capacity 1 8 to 16 (Gang forms <=22 ft) Jumpform need platform 5 ft wide Size Uniformity 6 to 9 <= 1200 CD IO CO o r-Crane Crane lifting capacity 1 1 Jumpform need platform 5 ft wide Size Uniformity <= 4; (columns 8 ft./hr) 600-750 (columns <= 1200 psf) 3 to 4 ID CO 30 to 40 Crane Crane lifting capacity 1 1 • • <=7 <=1200 CM <= 65 1 CD • 4 to 10 • • <=7 <= 1200 1 to 2 • • <= 4 (columns <= 16 ft) • • <= 4; (columns 8 ft/hr) 600-750 (columns <= 1200 psf) <= 19 <= 3 to 4 r-- • Width / Thickness (in.) Height (ft.) Other Wall components Offsets, Corners, Inserts, Pilasters Pour Characteristics Rate of Pour (ft. / hr) Allowable pour pressure (psf) Tie Spacing (ft.) Production Characteristics Rate of production (sft/manhr) Reuse Required Resource Required Crew size (No. of Crew members) Other Equipments Other (c) Mi' i • i;^ I'.iiniictfi Template Cckem Fwrrang Techntques Path. ROO («) T J X j ^aianwtec jRateol Production ^Qasr. |Production Data V*tjp Typi* 3ujn r^'a Un.li'jl r*ePnti j 'I i ivAt _J Standard Value R'. 1 Co I' Std Value 1 i Std* . E j a EQ 19 | D e n 1 Ed* (6) r*j5ProJect_View Standards Standard M&RBS j Window Help rgffgii?isi§igro5 fa&|?§¥ff| "4 I'd Template De^nptton Conv Sewer Replacement-M Construction of typical floor | Concrete Placement with Pui Method Statement for Const Trenchless (Microtunnelling) I Trenchless(Microtunneling) S\ Pump House Construction foi PumpHouse ' Construction of Typical Floorj Construction df typical floor; Gang Form High Rise Concrete pumping: Slicklme pumping Supporting Placing Flatwork - Slab placnj Excavation Support Techniqi I Wall Forming - Gang Form 5y Excavation or Trenching Tec| Shield Tunnelling MT Method MT involving Sod Jetting at tl Dewatering Techniques Column Forming Techniques Column and Beam Forming Ti Rebar Methods \ Wall Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming - Flyforms Rebar Placement Methods w Slab & Wall Forming Technioi" Tree Structure Column horming Techniques B ModlarForm Method Modular Column formwork method ; • ModlarFm Resource Steel Framed Modular Formwork -FCrew. Resource Formwork Crew ;;; B-5teelPlmod Method Ail Steel modular panel Column Formwork method. FormCrew Resource Formwork Crew" . „; , : ; SteelPanel Resource All Steel modular column formwork S - WoodGang Method Wooden Gangform Column Formwork method i™ FormCrew Resource General formwork labor - WoodGC Resource Wooden Column Gang Form B'HandSet Method Hand Set column forming method FormCrew Resource Formwork Crew YY--1 "V Hand-Set Resource Hand Set Formwork - TOPEC : E l AllSteelG Method All Steel Gang Formwork / - " -!-• FCrew Resource Formwork Crew '. •-AllSteelG Resource All Steel Gangs B-ConvCForm. Method Convention Job Built Column Formwork • r-~ ConvForm Resource Conventional Column Formwork • FCrew Resource FormworkCrew , • ) • B- AluGColm Method, Aluminum Wafer Column Gang Formwork w AluGForm Resource Aluminum Waler Gang Form FCrew Resource Formwork Crew ' •• Slriiiil.ini MfcKBS Parameters/Conditions Fragnet | Feasibility Rules | Mulh-Med|a Record: | PCBS j Memo} I Template' Column Forming Techniques '.Path: ROOT. , > >, . ." • Code ]ModlarForm Type-Description JModular Column tormwork method :URL I Template Go to URL ~3 Path-;Parameters/Condilions Descuption ; k l P. Class - |IB/Q/L 1 Unit N. P. . Production Data Q Ithr Height Range, N. C. .Tech. Feasibility Q ft . 1 Rate of Pour N. C. .Tech. Feasibility • Q ft Allowable Pour Pressure N. C. . Tech.-Feasibility Q psf 1 Allowable Tie Spacing N. C. . Tech. Feasibility Q •••• ft Site Storage Area Required N. C. . Tech. Feasibility . Q - . ft2 1 ill V~ Inherit attribute definition from above 'evel Add Delete OK Edit" Cancel Figure 4.3. (a) Method Class "Column Forming Techniques"; (b) Method "Modular Column Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value. 45 B W t O N S.I'II PKI1K11 11 SI File Project_View ~ C.i=r;C=rJi 5tart:jrd K&BB5 Wndcw Help Template Tree Structure Description ConvSewer Replacement M Construction of typical floor :f Concrete Placement with Pui Method Statementfor Const: Trenchless' (Microtunnelling) iTrenchless(Microtunneling) Pump House Construction fo ! PumpHouse Construction of Typical Floor?-Construction of. typical floor \m Gang Form ; High Rise Concrete pumping c. • Slickline pumping Supporting ! ; Placing FlatworkAslab placii Excavation Support Techniqt : Wall Forming - Gang Form Sv Excavation or Trenching Tec,': Shield Tunnelling MT Method MT involving Soil Jetting at tl ; Dewatering Techniques Column Forming Techniques^-Column and Beam Forming T p Rebar Methods , ' Wall Forming Techniques -I Slab Forming Techniques. .., i Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming - Flyf orms jWall forming Techniques («) (c) ROOT Method Class Wall Forming Techniques - B* WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork ' , -;>; : WGW Resource WallGangPanels ; FCrew Resource Formwork Crew rw/\- \_ . BConvForm : Method Conventional Wooden Formwork :- -.ConvFm Resource Conventional Job-Built Form;... -••FCrew Resource Formwork Crew R-AluGang Method Aluminum Waler Gang Formwork i ', -•• ;AluWForm Resource Aluminum Waler Form panel FCrew Resource Formwork Crew ' : B SteelGang Method Steel Gang Formwork i SteelGang Resource Steef Gang panel FCrew Resource Formwork Crew ^bi-AJumpFm Method-Aluminum Waler;Jumpform, l™ Alu Jump Resource Aluminum Jump Form - ••• FCrew Resource Formwork Crew B - SteModFm ^MethodSteel Framed Moduler Formwork i SteModFm Resource Steel Modular Formwork i. ; -FCrew Resource Formwork Crew B TunnelForm Method Tunnel Formwork*: # • I- Tunnel Fm Resource Tunnel Forms - Outmord -=• FCrew Resource Formwork Crew Patameter. Rate of Production ' D a s : j Production Data 7o!v* * v1 Qu-irfLilrvr I Unit Abbfevation; [sft/manhr » EQ 19 Cancel (b) injxj Parameters/Conditions | Fragnet | Feasibility Rules | Multi-Media Records | PCBS j Memo j Template. Wall Forming Techniques Path. ROOT. ~3 Code: j WGang Description: (wooden Gang Formwork Type: j URL | Template: | Path: | Parameters/'Condilions Go to URL ~3 Description . I i Class B/QVL Unit {Rate of Production M B f l B M B E W M M N:. P.. Production Data Q sfth i Mm. Reuse Required N. C. Tech. Feasibility Q No. Storage Space Length Flequired N. C. Tech. Feasibility : Q ft • • •• • ! Storage Space Width Required N. C. Tech. Feasibility Q ft i Allowable Rate of Pour N. c. Tech. Feasibility Q fthr ; Allowable Tie Spacing N. c. Tech. Feasibility Q f~ Inherit attribute definition from above level Add Delete Edit OK Cancel Figure 4.4. (a) Method Class "Wall Forming Techniques"; (b) Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value. 46 WREPCON S.20-PROJ03MI ST (c) Template Core Fornvng Techniques Pjrh MGQT Por^Tcrer JHate of Production > Class- IProduction Data I Unit Abbreviation sft/manhr Standard Value' Value Type Quantitative R Co... ItSldVa'-K: 1 ma EQ 65 /due 2 Add , Edit ;OK. "Cancel; File Pro]ect_View iTJgp£«e_wtaw. Standards Standard M&RBS< Window Helpi: Template , Description Conv Sewer Rep!acement-M| Construction of typical floor ll Concrete Placement with Purl Method Statement for Const | Trenchless (Microtunnellmg)' Trenchless(Microtunneling) 5 Pump House Construction fo PumpHouse Construction of Typical Floorji Construction of typical floor Gang Form High Rise Concrete pumping Slickline pumping Supporting j* Placing Flatwork-Slab placit' Excavation Support Techno; Wall Forming - Gang Form Sy; Excavation or Trenching Tec; Shield Tunnelling MT Method' MT involving Soil Jetting at tl; Dewatering Techniques Column Forming Techniques Column and Beam Forming TJ; Rebar Methods Wall Forming Techniques i iiab Forming Techniques f; :lab Forming Techniques s Slab Forming - Ftyforms ;; Rebar Placement Methods j; Slab & Wall Forming Techniq^ Core Forming Techniques \ Concrete Pumping - Line Pun Concrete Pumping - Boom Pj Concrete Placing Techniques Tree Structure Core Forming Techniques ROOT Method Class Core Forming Techniques B-StelMod Method All Steel Modular Formwork Method •••JumpForm Resource. JumpForm Forming System • v -.Labor Resource General formwork labor -Carpenter. Resource Carpenter E • ConvForm Method Conventional Wooden Formwork Conv-Fm Resource Conventional Form -•FCrew Resource Formwork Crew Ef • SteelPlMod Method Steel Framed Modular Panel Formwork i- SteelPlFm Resource Steel Framed Modular Panels '•••FCrew Resource Formwork Crew , B- SteelGang Method All Steel Gang Formwork ; -steelG Resource Steel Gang Form Resource Formwork Crew ; Method Wooden Gang Formwork Resource Wooden Gang Formwork Resource Formwork Crew . -Method Aluminum Waler Gang Form -•-- FCrew B - WoodGang i-'-WGang FCrew B- AruWFm i- AluWform Resource Aluminum Waler Formwork - -FCrew Resource Formwork Crew B-Self Climb Method Self-Climbing formwork system ; —Form Resource Self-Climb form > i Crane Resource Crane = -Labor -Resource Specialized skilled labor * E-SlipForm Method Slip Formwork ; -Form Resource Slip form -Labor Resource Specialized skilled labor Parameters/Conditions Fragnet | Feasb'lity Rules | Multi Media Records |- PCBS j Memo | Template Core Forming Technique? Path ROOT. Code ]StelMod Type _ J Description jAII Steel Modular Formwork Method H t M S H J H H I i l ^ B f URL I Template I Path | Parameierc/Conditions Go to URL "31 Description ' 1 P| Class j B/QA Unit sfth Mi [Rate of Production fl^^^^^^^l N P.. Production Data Q Dead weight N P.. Manufacturers Specs Q P:f l"4 Allowable Tie spacing . N P.. Manufacturers Specs Q It 11 Height range . . , N P.. Manufacturers Specs Q ft Width range • P.. Manufacturers Specs Q It •1 Allowable Pour pressure N P.. Manufacturers Specs Q psf ii^ Rate of pour N P.. Manufacturers Specs Q Ithr (7 Inherit attribute definition from above level Add Delete OK Edit Cancel Figure 4.5. (a) Method Class "Core Forming Techniques"; (b) Method " A l l Steel Modular Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value. 47 (a) ^REPCON 5.20-PRO303ViTEST| File* Projectjfiew Xejjjgjfeyjjf'gj Standards - Standard M&RBS Window Help k l j l t e U T a l a i o l D|'h|fl|ihi|s|ttr4""«al JLI Ml! IlliSI iiiidilinn [cmplate ^Template Slab Forming Techniques ' . fPath Slab-Form. 1 $ -j C o n d A m ^ l Z D S B r a B E I B S l Class j Tech Feasibility [No Value Type Quantitative R. II Co I Std Value 1 'ANOj EQ 6 . A d d . .ancel ! >lacement-M typical floor lent with Pui nt for Const otunnelling) Aurmelmg) i istruction fo!| Typical Floor!! typical floor ;te pumping Supporting - Slab plactt jjort Techniqi iang Form Sy* 'enching Tec! I MT Method' I Jetting at tl fintques Column Forming Techniques i Column and Beam Forming Ti Rebar Methods Wall Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques -Slab Forming - Fiyforms I rce Structure i Slab Forming TechniqueG E3 -FlTruss Method Form Slab Using Fly Forms ;••-Crane Resource Ptener Hammerhead Tower Crane FTruss Resource Flying Truss Tables FCrew Resource^ FormworkCrew-Slab,Formwork B Conv-Form Method Conventional Wooden .'SlabFormwork (Stick Forms) , ;•••'• CStick Resource- Conventional Slab Formwork - Stick Formwork •FCrew Resource FormworkCrew B - Conv-mFm Method Conventional Metal Slab Formwork v- CMetal . Resource Conventional Metal Slab Formwork FCrew Resource FormworkCrew B - Colm-mtd Method Column Mounted Slab Formwork FTable , Resource Column Mounted Flytable Resource Crane Resource Tower Crane Resource Y "--FCrew Resource Column Mounted Formwork Crew BTunnelFm Method Tunnel Formwork ; T u F o r m Resource Tunnel Forms ;•••- Crane Resource Tower Crane PIENER -FCrew Resource Formwork Crew - Tunnel Formwork-B Hand-set Method Hand-Set Slab Formwork Method HaForm Resource Hand-Set Formwork - TOPEC FCrew •. Resource Formwork Crew - Hand-Set Formwork- TOPEC "l Parameters/Conditions | Fragnet | Feasibility Rules | Multi Media Records | PCBS | Memo | Template. Slab Ftjiming Techniques Path Slab-Form Code: j FlTruss , Description: | Flying Truss Formwork Method Type: [Method ^ t ' i f f URL: M i l IPHBlls Parameters/Conditions Description ; i . P Class S ! BAD A. IrUnit Rate of.Production N. N. P.. C . Production Data Tech. Feasibility Q Q sfth • No. Site Assembly Space Length Required N. C . Tech. Feasibility Q " ft • S ite Assembly S pace Width R equired N: c. Tech. Feasibility Q ft S ite Assembly S pace Area R equired N. c. Tech. Feasibility Q ft2 Economical Length of SlabBay N. c. Tech. Feasibility Q ft Economical Width of SlabBay N. c. Tech. Feasibility Q ft Storey Height Range N, c. Tech. Feasibility ,Q "... ft -\ ~ Inherit attnbute definition trom above level •it 1 Add Delete •MM OK I. Cancel Figure 4.6. (a) Method Class "Slab Forming Techniques"; (b) Method "Flying Truss Formwork" with parameters and conditions; (c) Condition " M i n . Reuse Required" with value. 48 4.3 Concrete Placement Methods The selection of an appropriate concrete placement method needs careful analysis of various factors related to the project's context, the method's feasibility parameters, weather conditions, and cost of operations. Often in practice, concrete placement method selection is done in real time according to the quantity of concrete to be placed and the available time frame (Yaeger). For high-rise construction, the concrete placement method selection task becomes complicated due to the significant amount of vertical transportation involved. Various concrete placement methods are available such as crane and bucket method, wheelbarrows or mechanical barrows, belt conveyors, slickline pumping, placing boom, and separate placing boom. These methods can be characterized according to the type of resources they use. For example, crane and bucket method can be characterized according to the type of the crane and the bucket as its resources, and the slickline-pumping method can be characterized according to the concrete pump it is using. The properties of these concrete placement methods are essentially governed by the properties resources they use. Based on the literature survey and interviews conducted with a concrete placement subcontractor and a site superintendent, concrete placement methods were classified into five main types: Crane and bucket method, Belt conveyor method, Slickline pumping method, Placing boom method, and Separate placing boom method. Various other methods such as, Wheelbarrow, Motorized barrow, or Concrete hoist are rarely used on high-rise construction site, and hence were not treated. 4.3.1 Description of Concrete Placement Methods • Crane and Bucket Method This is the most commonly used concrete placement method. For high-rise construction, this method uses a tower crane as the vital resource along with one or more concrete buckets. The rate of concrete placement depends on the speed of the crane, concrete bucket capacity, number of buckets, and the travel distance. Generally, the rate of concrete placement varies from 25 yd 3 to 50 yd 3 per hour. • Belt Conveyor Method The belt conveyor method of concrete placement is generally used on below grade or low-rise concrete placement jobs. According to the type of the belt conveyor used, the method can have a vertical reach up to 87 ft, a horizontal reach up to 150 ft, and a vertically downward reach of 25 ft. The rate of concrete placement can vary from 50 to 230 yd 3 per hour. This method is very cost effective for mass concreting for foundation mats and grade slabs. 49 • Slickline Pumping Method Slickline pumping is a commonly used concrete placement method. It uses a concrete pump and steel pipeline as its resources. The rate of concrete placement essentially depends upon the concrete pump rate. This method is useful for mass concreting. A steel or cast iron pipeline is used to pump concrete to its final destination. Various pipeline layouts are made according to the location and size of the concrete pour (Crepas, 1985). • Placing Boom Method This is one of the most commonly used methods of concrete placement on high-rise construction. It employs a truck mounted placer boom as its resource. Depending on its make, a placer boom can have a horizontal reach of 174 ft, a vertical reach up to 188 ft, and a vertically downward reach of 137 ft. This method is very effective for concrete placement for vertical and horizontal elements, and massive foundation elements. • Separate Placing Boom Method The separate placing boom method includes a concrete placing boom separately mounted on a mast. The placing boom mast can be installed in several different ways. The most common way is to use a self-climbing boom mast in a blockout created in the slab. Concrete is supplied to the placing boom by a slickline and concrete pump assembly. This method essentially combines the advantages of both slickline pumping and placer boom method of concrete placement. 4.3.2 Factors Affecting Concrete Placement Method Selection Various factors need to be considered in concrete placement selection. They are overviewed in figure 4.7 and discussed below. • Concrete Properties Various properties of the concrete mix need to be considered when selecting a concrete placement method. The maximum size of aggregate and the type of the aggregate (i.e. lightweight or conventional) influence the suitability of the concrete pumping method. Most of the available concrete pumps cannot handle an aggregate size of more than 2.5 in. (Putzmeister, 2001c). Moreover, special care should be taken when pumping lightweight concrete due to its higher slump loss while pumping. Concrete slump is the limiting factor for selection of a belt conveyor method, as the feasible range of concrete slump is 1 to 7 inches (CC, 1992). The concrete quantity and the required rate of concrete placement dictate the selection of the concrete placement method. 50 Concrete Properties e.g.. Concrete quantity, Concrete stump, Max. size of aggregate, Type of aggregate. Element Specific Characteristics e.g., Vertical reach, Horizontal reach, Vertically downward reach. sill Site Properties e.g.. Site access. Site space, Site clearance. Concrete Supply e.g., Ready mix, Site mixing, Concrete transportations Concrete Placement Method Selection Cost e.g., Purchase cost. Renting cost, Leasing cost, Labor cost. Structural Characteristics e.g.^Block hole position requirements. Number of block holes, Post tonsioncd slab.. v — Architectural -Requirements e.g.: Concrete surface finish {'No bug holes'). Weather Conditions e.g.. Wind speed, Rain. . Hot weather; Cold weather. Resource Availability & Characteristics e.g., Crane lifting capacity, Crane boom reach, Crane speed, Concrete pump, Rate of concrete pumping. L Time Allowance e.g., ;Rate of concrete placement required, Allowable cycle time for concreting: L_ Figure 4.7. Factors affecting selection of concrete placement methods. • Element Specific Characteristics A concrete placement method's suitability is judged by element specific or physical component specific characteristic requirements such as maximum horizontal reach required, maximum vertical reach required, and maximum vertically downward reach required. These requirements are the limiting factors for selection of an appropriate concrete placement method (Gastaldo). For example, the Belt conveyor method can only place concrete up to an 87 ft vertical reach. • Site Properties Site properties are important for judging the suitability of a particular concrete placement method for a given project context. Concrete placement methods are characterized according to the resources they use. These resources, in turn, have their own feasibility requirements. For example, slickline pumping and separate placing boom use concrete line pumps. The footprints of these pumps require a certain parking space. 51 Further, placing boom pumps need a vertical unfolding height of 52 ft at site, which should be free from overhead electrical wires or any obstructions (Putzmeister, 2001a). Additional site requirements of ground conditions, safe distance from excavation ditches, site open space, equipment-cleaning space, etc. (Fisher, 1997) are also involved. Slickline pumping for high-rise construction needs a "base line" length to run the concrete pipeline on ground before raising the vertical pipe. The baseline length is required to generate the friction necessary to reduce backpressure on the pump and the site length required should be at least 150 ft (Crepas, 1985). Whenever the required site length is not available, a "basement loop" of at least 20 ft depth is required (Gastaldo). • Concrete Supply Concrete transportation methods play an important part in decision making about concrete placement method selection because the ability to achieve full performance of a concrete pump is limited by the supply of concrete. For example, for a concrete pump that can theoretically place concrete at a rate of 200 yd 3 per hr to perform at full capacity, it needs one 10-yd3 capacity truck mixer every three minutes (Wallace, 1998). Therefore, availability of concrete transportation equipment such as trucks, truck mixers, and dumpers along with the necessary site access and space availability (Wallace, 1998), essentially limit the productivity of a concrete placement method. • Weather Conditions Hot weather concrete placement and cold weather concrete placement have their own guidelines to follow before and after concrete placement; however these seldom affect concrete method selection. On the other hand, weather conditions such as wind speed affect selection of a concrete placement method because it is unsafe to operate a placer boom pump when the wind speed is more that 77-km/ hr (ACPA, 2001). Similarly, the crane and bucket method cannot be used in windy weather conditions. Also, the belt conveyor method, unlike other methods, cannot be used for concrete placement in rainy conditions. • Resource Availability & Characteristics Resource availability and resource characteristics are important factors for concrete placement method selection. Similarly, crane-lifting capacity at the tip of its boom is important to judge the maximum capacity of a concrete bucket. Moreover, type of concrete pumps available and their rates of concrete pumping in turn dictate the rate of concrete placement by concrete pumping method. 52 • Cost Various types of costs have to be taken into consideration during decision making for concrete placement method selection. The cost of purchasing, renting, or leasing equipment along with labor and operating costs need to be considered. Also, when comparing two concrete placement options such as crane and bucket method and separate placing boom, one has to take into account savings in overall project cost due to a shorter duration construction cycle (Harvell, 1991) (Gastaldo). • Structural Characteristics Structural characteristics of the facility also play an important part in the selection of a concrete placement method. The number and location of cranes on a jobsite depends on the geometric and structural characteristics of the project, which in turn determines feasibility of concrete placement by the crane and bucket method. When selecting the separate placing boom method one has to consider feasible locations of the blockout1, which also depends upon structural characteristics of the building (Harvell, 1991). Similarly, the slickline-pumping method cannot be used when a floor slab is to be post tensioned as the pipe layout might disturb the post tensioning cable layout (Crepas, 1985). • Architectural Requirements Architectural requirements such as the surface finish quality required may also dictate concrete placement method selection. Often an architectural wall with heavy reinforcement congestion needs a bottom-up pumping method to achieve an architectural smooth finish with few if any "bug holes2" (Crepas, 1985). The bottom-up pumping method is a special type of slickline pumping method where the formwork is filled with concrete pumped from a shut-off valve located at the bottom of the formwork. • Time Allowance The available timeframe for concrete placement often dictates the concrete placement method. To achieve a shorter duration construction cycle a large quantity of concrete needs to be placed quickly, which demands the appropriate number of resources and productivity for the concrete placement method. Based on the literature review and interviews with concrete sub contractors and suppliers, the feasibility parameters identified as shown in table 4.3. Implementation of some of the concrete placement knowledge collected within the M & R B S structure is shown in figure 4.8. The concrete placement method class containing various methods is shown along with the feasibility parameters and conditions. 1 Blockout is the opening in the slab for the pedestal (or mast) of a separate placing boom. 2 Bug holes are the voids formed during concrete placement. 53 8" a> CO S sz c P a) ^ CD + CD 8 <•> CO •— £° S £ C7J1 o | LO i CN ! II V o o co • o o II V o CN o i LO i : LO ; CD o CL E a. CD E <n •g c '5 'a 8 ^ CO o a.io CO T -t= II CD A Q. o p | LO j ! CN i II v i O I o ; i II v E o o ?f <5 ° o £ CO CD K 2 '<D 2 O cn CN LO i CN I 0 0 I oo i o CN o CD > c 2£ "55 ^ m 2 o o i II v o co co 0 o m ° « T 3 CD O f0 0 O 2 o io II A LO i l o J D •5 CD LO • * CD Oi l C i ro i CO I 3 cr CD a: a. co c CD CL O i o sz O E 1 i CO cn < CD > O CO CD QL Oj CO I l_ i CO: £1 O j 11 3! i O l 3! h_ j i w CD CL o £ CD O c o O ! cj ; ro i CD IK CD E .9-'zi CT LU CO CD a. "2 I c o Q CD i > £ ro 0 E CD O : ro; CL: CD E CD o ro 0 . o a) ra OL Oi O i c i .21 1 o 3 •01 o i CD i E l CD! O l roi aj o j _a> ] to! <K| CD| = 1 cr Q) " E a> CD cr-e CD 54 jlic ft X o Firm leveled ground oo Thrust block and hydrai diversion block need 45 30 ft space. jlic ftx 1 Firm leveled ground oo Thrust block and hydrai diversion block need 45 30 ft space. Tl-o T— Firm leveled ground / without excavation ditches oo Wind speed should be <=. 70 km/hr • Firm leveled ground 0 0 No obstruction due to overhead wires i 00 Horizontal elements (c.y.; Additional requirements Ground conditions Crew (No. of Crew membei Other 55 ( « ) (c) : F-ile Project_View Standards Standard M&RBS Window & 3 Is * 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 * 0 H ? w W l u i i Temp Un OICT r =la;ir-g Techniqjc, ! Path ROOT J kPerametec ' IHateot concrete placed • i [Oats; | Production Data ]r]i VatoTj ip* rjua- thrive riling) | Hon fo'l ^Standard Value 1 \ Fl ._D> . Stcl Value 1 'ANDJ EQ . '45 IStdValue 2 Add Eelete ' Edit ient-M| I floor I ,: 'ith Put' Const: ill Floor; floor -mpmgI | ortinglp 3 placnj >chniqi( Drm SvE lg Tec: lethodf ig at tl Column Forming Techniques Column and Beam Forming Ti Rebar Methods Tree Structure Concrete Placing Techniques iH § ^ > T t f K r tethod das< Concrete Placing l . f e t f M l H K f l t t t u t ' ' H " Plac-Boom Method Concrete Placing with Truck Mounted Placing Boom . i- Placingbm. Resource Placing boom - Putzmeister. - • C r e w - P B Resource Concrete placement crew - placer boom B-Mast-Boom Method Concrete Placing with Separate Placing Boom i - SepBoom Resource Separate Placing Boom i-BoomMast- Resource Boom Mast TG 10 Tower - •L inePump Resource Line,Pump •; .. .. B" Belt-Cony.. Method Concrete Placing with Belt Conveyor ;... Beltcon Resource Belt Conveyor - • BeltCrew Resource Belt conveyor concrete placement crew B- CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket r~ Crane , Resource Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhead Tower Crane ;-• Bucket Resource Concrete Bucket - Upright - - Crew Resource Crane and Bucket concrete placement crew . B- Slick Line Method Concrete Placing with Slickline Pumping LinePump Resource. Line Pump , ! '— LinePCrew Resource Slickline concrete placement crew . ^Jnjx] Parameters/Conditions Fragnet | Feasibility Rules | l Multi-Media Record; | PCB5 | Memo | H i Template: Concrete Placing Techniques . Path ROOT iilllll i t i f j i i l l f Code: CrBuck „.Description: IConcrete Placing with Crane & Bucket lii&illli 191I111I M l f p l l Type:-, JMetho<fj,$-j",l. URL I PBltei Go to URL Template \ Path | Parameters/Conditions ~3 Description U::\\ P.II Class ,^1 BAD/L.I Unit Rate ^concrete-placement:* Parking Space Length Required Parking Space Width Required Parking Space Area Required Max. Size of Aggregate P.. Production Data C.:-Tech. Feasibility C. Tech. Feasibility C. Tech. Feasibility C. Tech. Feasibility Q yd3/hr Q ft Q ft Q ft2 Q in F* Inherit attribute definition from above level Add 1 Delete Edit OK j Cancel Figure 4.8. (a) Method Class "Concrete Placing Methods"; (b) Method "Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Concrete Placement" with value. 56 4.4 Rebar Placement Methods For concrete construction, rebar placement is as important an activity as formwork and concrete placement. There are various views about the best way to carry out rebar fabrication and placement such as Reinforcement rationalization (Goodchild and Moss, 1999), Standardization of rebar (Theophilus, 1995), and Constructability considerations (Proverbs, Holt, and Olomolaiye, 1999). By and large, rebar placement methods can be classified into three categories such as Rebar assembly (i.e. onsite assembly from loose pre-cut and pre-bent rebar), Partial rebar prefabrication (i.e. partially prefabricated and partially assembled in place from loose pre-cut and pre-bent rebar), and Rebar prefabrication (i.e. totally prefabricated and placed on site). Proverb, Holt, and Olomolaiye (1999) classified rebar placement with one additional type of method i.e., "Bent and fabricated on site"3. Based on the literature review and interviews conducted with rebar contractors, suppliers, and detailers, we summarized various factors affecting the selection of rebar placement methods as described below. They are overviewed in figure 4.9. Element Specific Characteristics e.g., Length, Height, Weight, Opening size, Number of openings. IliiiiiiliiiS: Constructability Issues e.g., Rebar congestion, Connection between elements. Site Properties e.g., Site assembly space, Site storage space. Rebar Placing Method Selection Resource Availability & Characteristics e.g.. Crane lifting capacity, Crane boom reach, Rebar prefabrication crew, Rebar placement crew. ~ m Cost e.g., Prefabrication cost, Rebar splicing cost, Transportation & storage cost. iiisiiiiiiiifii Compatibility Issues e.g., Formwork method compatibility. Time Allowance e.g., Rate of rebar placement required, Allowable cycle time for rebar placement. Figure 4.9. Factors affecting selection of rebar placement methods. During site visits and interviews with rebar sub contractors we observed that in high-rise construction the "onsite cutting and bending" method is rarely practiced. Therefore we assumed that the loose bars are precut and prebent in an offsite fabrication yard. 57 4.4.1 Description of Rebar Placement Methods • Rebar Assembly This is the most commonly used method of rebar placement on a construction site. Rebar cages for structural elements are assembled from loose pre-cut and pre-bent rebar. The elements such as slab, shear walls, and core walls are usually assembled using this method. The method requires sufficient site rebar storage area for pre-cut and pre-bent rebar. Assembling rebar for elements more than 8 ft high requires temporary scaffolding and safety harnesses, which results in lower overall productivity (Fradley). • Partial Rebar Prefabrication This is also a commonly used method for rebar placement on high-rise construction. Especially in earthquake prone zones such as Vancouver, the vertical shear reinforcement in core and shear walls needs to be staggered at alternate floors. These concentrated regions of rebar, generally two storeys high, are called as "zones" (Fradley) (Bitchel). To improve productivity and ease in assembly, these zones are essentially prefabricated and assembled in place along with loose bars (Fradley) (Bitchel). This method improves productivity of rebar placement for major shear elements such as cores and shear walls. • Rebar Prefabrication This is the total rebar prefabrication method. The rebar cage for the structural element is prefabricated. According to availability of site space, the prefabrication yard may be formed onsite or offsite. This method significantly improves rebar placement productivity, as the prefabricated cages only need to be lifted in place. By prefabricating rebar ahead of schedule the contractor can remove the rebar activity from the critical path of the project (Shaw). However, constructability issues need to be discussed before prefabrication. Generally, on high-rise construction, column rebar is totally prefabricated. 4.4.2 Factors Affecting Rebar Placement Method Selection • Site Properties Site storage area (length and width) and the site rebar assembly area (length and width) are important factors, which affect rebar placement method selection. The site should have sufficient storage area to store one truckload of rebar (Bitchel). For the case of on-site prefabrication of rebar cages for structural elements, the site space should be enough to store loose rebar, fabricate rebar cage, and to stack rebar cages i.e., the site should be at least 20 ft in width and 40 to 60 ft in length (Fradley). Moreover, prefabricated rebar mats for slab sections, walls sections, etc. need rebar storage area on site. 58 • Resource Availability and Characterization Crane availability and its lifting capacity are the main factors, which determine the feasible rebar placement method on high-rise construction. Special arrangements such as lifting beams are required for transportation of prefabricated rebar cages (Shaw). For the cases of rebar prefabrication onsite or offsite, the rebar contractor needs two separate crews for rebar prefabrication and rebar placement. • Element Specific Characteristics Length, height, and width of the physical element are the decision-making parameters for rebar placement method selection. The length and height of the shear wall limits transportation options as well the handling ability of the crane. The weight of the rebar cage also affects selection of the rebar prefabrication method. Element specific characteristics such as "opening size" and "number of openings" also affect rebar prefabrication (Shaw). As described earlier, the regions of concentrated rebar i.e. "zones" need to be prefabricated, which also acts as an influencing factor for rebar placement method selection. • Constructability Issues Various constructability issues affect rebar placement method selection. Rationalization of flat slab reinforcement and constructability analysis can help rebar prefabrication. Various types of proprietary slab rebar mats are available, along with prefabricated punching shear reinforcement, which can help reduce 75 % of rebar fixing time and can save about 25 % in labor costs (Bennet and MacDonald, 1992). However, rebar congestion and the connection between elements such as beam, column, and slab make rebar prefabrication more expensive. • Cost Cost is the major consideration for rebar placement method selection. Rebar assembly is a cost effective method of rebar placement but requires more time and labor resources. Rebar prefabrication is a more costly method because of additional constructability considerations required by the detailer, as well as requirements of additional splices, and couplers. Moreover, an offsite prefabrication method involves significant additional transportation costs. 59 • Compatibility Issues Compatibility issues arise between prefabricated rebar cages for slab mat reinforcement and'punching shear reinforcement in terms of rebar spacing (BPG, 2001). Further, there can be rebar placement compatibility issues with the formwork method. For example, i f the slipform method is to be used for wall or core forming, then the rebar placement method needs to take care of rebar lap staggering and use ninety-degree hooks instead of conventional hooks (Camellerie, 1978). Moreover, compatibility issues related to productivity also affect the selection of rebar placement method. The tunnel forming method needs higher productivity from rebar placement method, hence it is compatible with the rebar prefabrication method for wall rebar (deBruin and Fallowfield) (Wallace, 1985) (Quinton, 1991) (Prudhomme and Bradley, 1995) (basically, the faster the forming method used, the faster the rebar work has to be). • Time Allowance This is a very important determinant for the selection of the rebar placement method. Generally, in high-rise construction, to achieve a shorter construction cycle time, the contractor uses prefabricated column reinforcement, and the core and shear wall reinforcement are partially prefabricated in the form of zones. Depending upon the available timeframe for vertical and horizontal elements rebar placement, the constructability and cost considerations, the decision of partial or total prefabrication is made. Method selection feasibility parameters gleaned from the literature and experts are summarized in table 4.4. Implementation of some of the rebar placing method knowledge is summarized in figure 4.10. The summary of method selection feasibility factors, presented in tables 4.1 to 4.4 emphasize on technical feasibility aspects of construction methods, which are used to form production rules. In the next chapter we describe in detail the characterization scheme of these feasibility factors and the formation of production rules. 60 |3 c I iS 2.1 Q. E <n < JD ,to CD CL 03 a> CC co o 11 <o -9 (o 2 0- CL JD E 0) CO Ice JD CO Q. to JD <D CC o c aj E u a. c E ai 8 c S ft JD E a> to CO CO. QJ cn JD E a> to; cn to (0 "> 9-ro u x g ca o <t> co is? CJ) c ° £ JZ p + Ig ca o ^ CD o o CM ¥ A i II O) c to CM II o CM II A CM A CM A O O CM II A O CM n A (A! U i 13 2 to sz u c CO JZ mi 'to! X | S3 tz <D c o a. c CO E a) LU <D Q. O i_ to JD E zt & c 'c to Q. o to E 0) LU i c : tO I CL IO 61 <= 0.32 (50 % less manhrs) can be 2 placers There should be atleast 20 identical slab sections.Compatible with Tunnel fomnwork method. 0.166 CO II V core <= e with mwork d. <= 0.133, foi 0.1 CO CompatibI Tunnel fori methc <= 0.1 CO The shear zones are prefabricated while rest of the rebar is assembled in place. <= 0.1 co Needs temporary scaffolding for rebar assembly reduces productivity. 0.125 oo n V 07142 co emporary ig for rebar y reduces jctivity. o n V Needs t scaffoldir assembi prodi ^ ^ rs) Production Characteristics Rate of production (Tn/manhr Resource Required Crew size (No. of crewmembei Other (c) I Template. Rebar Methods ! Path ROOT. f Condrtion if Class- jProduction Data v a* '« Twjn ••.=•> P^ li^ e ] Ui!t.foiP¥Vs.n Jli • B".|rCo I'SldVafejel 'AND} EQ 0.071 ' fta»2 | OK | Cance' | (b) S f R E P C O N S.Z0-PRO303\TI SI File Projectjfaw .• . • ftjr tecs Starda'd ""to^BS Window Help * fa;-* 12I alirijitelJlfMal^l njtiliflivlsl^lftlQl _£| Template Tree Structure Conv Sewer Replacement-M Construction of typical floor! Concrete Placement with Pui| Method Statement for Constf f renchless (Microtunnelling) j Trenchless(Mtcrotunneling) S; Pump House Construction foi PumpHouse ' J; Construction of Typical Floor Construction of typical floor Gang Form High Rise Concrete pumping j Slickline pumping Supporting! Placing Flatwork - Slab plach Excavation Support Techniqi Wall Forming - Gang Form 5y Excavation or Trenching Tec Shield Tunnelling MT Methodj MT involving Soil Jetting at tl| Rebar Methods Method Class Rebar Placing Methods E3- .Col-ReAsm Method Column Rebar Assembly j -RCrew Resource Rebar Crew : ' 5 Col-PreFab Method Column Rebar Prefabrication } - • RCrew Resource Rebar Crew BW/CReAsm Method WaO/Core Rebar Assembly Method L - RCrew Resource Rebar Crew 0-W/CPreFab Method WaB / Core Rebar Prefabrication j -RCrew Resource Rebar Crew 6 W/CPPrFab Method Wall / Core Partial Rebar Prefabrication I 1 RCrew Resource Rebar Crew $•• Slab-ReAsm Method Slab Rebar Assembly 'y <• RCrew Resource Rebar Crew 1=3 Sla-PreFab Method Slab Rebar Prefabrication • •RCrew . Resource RebarCrew Standard Ml' I'I is jnjxj Parameters/Condition; Fragnet | Feasibility Rules | Multi-Media Records )| PCBS |. Memo Template Rebar Methods Path ROOT Code |ColReAsm Type '• 1 - J Description |Corumn Rebar A:serrb!y URL j Template Path I r Pa'rameters/TJonditioris Go to URL Hr Description Rebar Site Storage Length Required Rebar Site Storage Width Required Rebar Site Storage Area Required Rate of Production I I j Pj Class N. C. Tech. Feasibility N. C. Tech. Feasibility B.'Q/L Unit C. Tech. Feasibility C. Production Data ft ft ft2 Tnh r Inherit attribute definition from above level Add Delete Edit OK Cancel Figure 4.10. (a) Method Class "Rebar Placing Methods"; (b) Method "Column Rebar Assembly" with parameters and conditions; (c) Parameter "Rate of Production" with value. 63 Chapter 5. Rule Writing for Feasibility Checking 5.1. Introduction This chapter describes encoding factors related to method selection and feasibility reasoning in a knowledge management tool. The knowledge representation scheme used to represent these factors is explained along with the available knowledge representation constructs in the CLIPS expert system. A number of issues related to the feasibility reasoning system are discussed and examples of feasibility reasoning rules are provided. 5.2 Method Selection and Feasibility Factors Characterization We have categorized the factors affecting method selection and feasibility identified in Chapter 4, under three headings: Site characteristics, Structural characteristics, and Production characteristics. Our emphasis is on modeling declarative knowledge1, which resides with construction personnel in the form of experience and rules-of-thumb regarding the technical feasibility of construction methods. • Site characteristics Site characteristics are defined as the properties of a jobsite location, which are relevant to the selection of a construction method and feasibility reasoning. As an example, the observation that sufficient site assembly space exists to allow Flying trusses to be assembled on-site helps ensure that at least one essential condition is met for this formwork method. In the case of concrete placement methods, jobsite space requirements are essential conditions for determining the feasibility of a particular method. For example, a Separate placing boom method for concrete placement is feasible when the jobsite has enough space for the baseline or the basement loop installation. Site characteristics of a jobsite location are expressed in terms of site storage space, site assembly space, parking space, and open space with their length, width, and area attributes. • Structural characteristics Structural characteristics are defined as the physical properties of the PCBS component and the M & R B S component, which are central for feasibility reasoning. Again, these properties constitute the necessary conditions of feasibility for the construction method of interest. For example, for application of a flying truss formwork system, a slab-bay width between 15 to 30 ft and slab-bay length of 22 ft is economical (Fischer, 1991). Thus the physical attributes of slab-bay i.e., Length and Width, become 1 "Declarative knowledge is the surface level information that an expert can verbalize." In other words, declarative knowledge is the general heuristics available at a conscious level (McGraw and Harbinson-Briggs, 1989). 64 the factors for judging its economic feasibility of the Flying truss method. By listing these in the tables presented in Chapter 4, structural characteristics have been categorized into component characteristics, subcomponent characteristics, and pour characteristics for formwork methods. For concrete placement methods, structural characteristics are categorized as concrete properties, equipment reach, and concrete placement rate. For rebar placement methods, structural characteristics are categorized as component characteristics and subcomponent characteristics. • Production characteristics A method's production characteristics are arguably the most important factors affecting method selection. These factors include the method's productivity related aspects such as rate of production, minimum reuse required, crew type required, and minimum feasible quantity required. These factors act as necessary conditions for feasibility reasoning of a method. As noted previously, tables 4.1 to 4.4 in Chapter 4 summarize the above-discussed feasibility factors in tabular format. The point to note here, however, is that not all the feasibility factors knowledge presented in Appendix-A can be listed in these tabular formats. 5.3 Knowledge Representat ion Scheme A knowledge representation scheme is central to the development of a knowledge management tool, as it allows one to model method selection knowledge in a reusable format. There are two ways of representing knowledge: Procedural representation and Declarative representation (Adeli, 1988). In a procedural knowledge representation, knowledge is embedded in procedural code as pieces of information, which makes it difficult to update. In declarative knowledge representation, knowledge is stored in a knowledge base. In this thesis, we have used a declarative knowledge representation in the form of production rules about the feasibility of construction methods. The point to note here is that the declarative knowledge about the feasibility of a construction method comes from the relevant M & R B S component's parameters and conditions. We summarize various advantages we gain by using production rules as follows: • Production rules are expressed in the form of "condition - action" pairs (Turban, 1998) that are easily understandable by the user. • Production rules can be stored in separate rule repositories, which can be readily archived or updated. • Each production rule is a piece of knowledge that can be developed and modified independently of other rules in the repository (Turban, 1998). • Rule-based reasoning is appropriate for causal reasoning (Zizette, 1998) and allows the user to generate explanations by tracking the flow of inference. 65 • A production rule is a declarative rule which contains facts and "cause - effect" relationships (Zizette, 1998), where the facts are generally taken from the rule-based system's database (for our case the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies). Thus by changing fact values one can update the rule based system. Selecting an appropriate expert system for implementation of our knowledge representation scheme was an important task. Since our aim was to embed the inference engine of the expert system within the R E P C O N research system, the ability to integrate with this system and interoperability with C & C++ were important characteristics sought. A few commercially available expert systems with the foregoing characteristics were examined and tested for their ability to express domain knowledge and production rules. Based on this work, the CLIPS 6.2 expert system was selected. 5.4 CLIPS The C Language Integrated Production System, i.e., CLIPS, is a rule-based and / or object based expert system developed by N A S A ' s Johnson Space Center (CLIPS, 2002). It is a widely accepted expert system throughout government, industry, and academia, which is available as a "freeware" (which enhances its appeal because it makes the research system more readily accessible to other researchers). Because CLIPS has been written in C language, it can be easily embedded within a wide range of knowledge-based applications, and can be used in diverse computing environments. Knowledge and information representation in CLIPS is made with the help of various constructs, which are described as follows: Facts Facts are the basic high-level forms of representing information, which can be asserted, retracted, modified and duplicated during run time. There are two types of facts i.e., ordered facts and non-ordered facts. A n "ordered" fact consists of a single symbol (relation name) followed by a sequence of zero or more fields (slots) separated by a space and delimited by an opening parenthesis on the left and a closing parenthesis on the right. e.g., (StoreyHeight 11 101099 88) in which the first field StoreyHeight (relation name) is the "relation" applied to the remaining fields (slots) in the ordered fact. A "non-ordered" fact provides the user with the ability to abstract the structure of a fact by assigning a name to each field (slot) in the fact. For example, a fact about the 66 PCBS component slab-bay can be expressed with the relation name "pcbs_component" and fields (slots) such as, name, description, and multi-slot attributes (in which attributes of slab-bay can be expressed as strings) as follows: (pcbs component (name "Slab-Bay") (description "The Superstructure Slab Bay ") (attributes "Length" "Width" "Thickness") ) The Deffacts construct is used to automatically assert a set of facts that are known before running a program. Any number of facts (either ordered or non-ordered) may be asserted into an initial fact-list by the deffacts construct using the "Reset" command in CLIPS. For example, the above stated "non-ordered" fact of Slab-Bay is asserted into the initial-fact list by using the deffacts construct as shown below: (deffacts Pcbs-1 (pcbs_component (name "Slab-Bay") (description "The Superstructure Slab Bay") (attributes "Length" "Width" "Thickness")) ) Where Pcbs-1 is the name of the deffacts construct. The expression of PCBS data in terms of "facts" about PCBS components is used in feasibility reasoning about construction methods. Templates Before facts are created or defined, CLIPS needs to be informed about valid slots and corresponding valid value types for the relation name. The deftemplate construct is used to create a template, which can be used to access fields of the fact by name. For example, the template for defining / validating slab-bay "facts" can be listed with valid slots and their value types as follows. (deftemplate pcbs component (slot name (type STRING)) (slot description (type STRING)) (multislot attributes (type STRING)) ) This type of template can be used to define valid "facts" about the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies for feasibility reasoning. The point to note here is that the "ordered" 67 facts do not have a corresponding deftemplate. Whenever CLIPS encounters an ordered fact, it automatically creates an implied template (Giarratano and Riley, 1998). Rules These are the primary knowledge representation constructs composed of an antecedent (i.e. IF part or Left-hand-side of rule) and a consequent (i.e. T H E N part or Right-hand-side of the rule). These constructs are useful for expressing method selection and feasibility knowledge. For example, a simple rule that checks for the existence of the PCBS component Slab-Bay can be written as (defrule checkJbrSlabbay (pcbs component (name "Slab-Bay") (description "The Superstructure Slab-Bay")) => (printout t "The Superstructure Slab-Bay exists in Project PCBS" t) ) For this rule, the condition part checks i f the fact pcbs component with the corresponding name and description exists. If the result is true then the action part prints out the corresponding message. Procedural Knowledge Procedural knowledge representation constructs are similar to those of conventional programming languages such as P A S C A L and C. These constructs include functions, generic functions, message-handlers, and modules. The procedural functions including "If - Then- Else", "While loops", and "Loop-for-count" help in the expression of the procedural part of feasibility reasoning knowledge such as checking for uniformity among PCBS components of a similar type. Object Oriented Language The Clips Object Oriented Language (COOL) paradigm includes, abstraction, encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism, and dynamic binding as the aspects of object oriented knowledge representation (CLIPS, 2002). COOL constructs such as, the defclass and definstances constructs are especially useful for expressing values associated with PCBS components, as explained in section 5.5. 68 5.5 Issues Related to Feasibility Reasoning System Implementation of the rule based feasibility-reasoning system has used the above-described constructs for representation of the PCBS (i.e. the product model), M & R B S (i.e. the method model), and method selection knowledge. Issues related to this representation are discussed in the following sections of this chapter: • Representation of PCBS (Section 5.6) As described in Chapter 3, the project PCBS is a semantically predefined hierarchy of project elements. When representing this hierarchy using CLIPS syntax, we need to describe every project component along with its attributes and their values as well as the hierarchical relationship between these components. • Representation of M & R B S (Section 5.7) Similar to the PCBS, the M & R B S is also a semantically predefined hierarchy of method and resource components, described as a method statement. Thus to represent a project M & R B S , we need to express method statement with its constituent operation, method, and resource components along with their attributes and values using CLIPS syntax, as well as the hierarchical relationship between these components. • Representation of Method Selection Knowledge (Section 5.8) The method selection and feasibility factors knowledge available in tabular format can be modeled in terms of production rules. The syntax and heuristics of these production rules should be compatible with the representation schema of PCBS as well as M & R B S components or vice versa. Moreover, the rules should be modeled in such a way that they can be used on different projects. 5.6 CLIPS Template for Project PCBS As stated previously, the Physical Component Breakdown Structure (PCBS) is a "quasi-hierarchical quasi-object oriented" (Udaipurwala, 1997) way of listing project components such as project, subproject, system, subsystem, elements and so on. These project components are hierarchically listed and can have a number of "parent node -child node" relationships. The U M L static structure diagram (UML, 2001) (Reed, 2000) depicting the association between project PCBS component, its attributes and their values, and corresponding locations is shown in figure 5.1. Every PCBS component is described as a 69 class with name, path, code, description, type, and its corresponding physical attributes such as length, width, height, etc. Each attribute describing physical properties has its value described at a location or set of locations, thereby indicating presence of the element at that location or set of locations. This complex description of a physical component can be made with relative ease by using CLIPS's deftemplate construct and defclass construct. 1 -has | 0* Attribute 0.* <\ • -Attribute Name -Class Name -Value Type -Unit -Location Range - h a s -has -has Cpmpprteril -Name -Path -Code.: -Description -Type -Attributes •••Aggregate Attribute Values from lower levelQ +Sum Attribute Values for LocationsQ Attribute Value Relation Condition |-Vaiue1 hValue 2 -contains -is present at Location -Name 0.1 °-* -Path -Code -Description -Is a part of -Type -Attributes • 1 - * •••Aggregate Lower Level Attribute Values!,} +Sum Attribute Value for All Locations!) Location Set -Name •' -Path Code -Description -Type..;"' -Attributes ^Aggregate Lower:Level Attribute Values() +Sum Attribute Value for All LocationsQ :-IS:a':part-;6f -contains 0.* SUb Location •Name •Path •Code •Description Type •Attributes Figure 5.1. U M L static structure diagram of the association between project PCBS component, its attributes and their values, and corresponding locations. The deftemplate construct is useful for representing a structured and non-ordered fact such as a PCBS component. Each field in the fact is called as a slot or a multislot depending upon the type of value it stores. A component in the PCBS hierarchy is described by a name, code, path, description, component type, attributes, attribute type, and attribute values, which are expressed as slots or multislots in the template. The template structure appears as follows: ;;; Template for describing PCBS component;;; 70 (deftemplate pcbs component (slot name) (slot path) (slot code) (slot description) (slot component type) (multislot attributes) (multislot attributeJype (default "Quantitative" "Boolean" "Linguistic")) (multislot attribute_yalues) ) Attribute values for a PCBS component are expressed with the help of the defclass construct. The class named PCBSDATA is used to associate the attribute values with corresponding location ranges, while the PCBS_VALUE class is used to describe values of the attribute at each location. These classes are expressed as shown below. ;;; Class for giving location ranges to attributes values of PCBS component;;; (defclass PCBSDATA (is-a USER) (role concrete) (pattern-match reactive) (slot unit (access read-write)) (multislot locationlist (access read-write)) (multislot attribute value list (access read-write)) ) ;;; Class for giving values to attributes of PCBS component;;; (defclass PCBS_VALUE (is-a USER) (role concrete) (pattern-match reactive) (slot condition (access read-write)) (slot valuel (access read-write)) (slot valuel (access read-write)) ) Here is an example fact for the PCBS component slab-bay. The following deffacts construct is used to define a pcbs component fact and associate attributes with corresponding instances of PCBSDATA class (attrl, attr2, etc.). Component name, code, path, description, attribute type are also provided. (deffacts pcbsjcomponentsl (pcbs component (name "pcbsl") (code "SlBay") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab. SlBay") (description "Floor SlabBay 1") (componentJype "Subelement") 71 (attributes "Length" "Width" "Thickness" "StoreyHeight" "Shape" "SlabBay Supporting Sides are Parallel" "SlabBay Support is Uniform") (attributeJype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Boolean" "Boolean") (attribute_values [attrl] [attr2] [attr3] [attr4] [attr5] [attr6] [attr7])) ) The following construct defmstances DATA2 has instances of the class PCBSDATA i.e., "attrl (attr2, attr3, etc.) of PCBSDATA ", which are used to define the instances of class PCBS VALUE (avail, aval2, etc.) associated with a particular location ("GFL" in the present case). Units of the associated attribute values are also provided (e.g. ft). (defmstances DATA2 (attrl of PCBSDA TA (unit "ft") (location Jist "GFL") (attribute valueJist [avail])) (attr2 ofPCBSDA TA (unit "ft") (location Jist "GFL "). (attribute_yalueJist [aval2])) (attr3 of PCBS DA TA (unit "ft") (location Jist "GFL") (attribute_yalueJist [aval3])) (attr4 ofPCBSDA TA (unit "ft") (location Jist "GFL") (attribute_yalue list [aval4])) (attr5ofPCBS_DATA (locationJist "GFL") (attribute_yalue list [avalS])) (attrdofPCBSJDATA (location list "GFL") (attribute_yalue list [aval6])) (attrlofPCBS'DATA (locationJist "GFL") (attribute valueJist [aval 7])) ) The following construct defmstances DATA1 has instances of the class PCBS_VALUE i.e., "avail (aval2, aval3, etc.) ofPCBSJVALUE" used to define values of the attributes. The values are defined with associated condition (e.g. EQ). (definstances DATA1 (avail ofPCBSJVALUE (condition "EQ") (valuel 80.34)) (aval2 ofPCBSJVALUE (condition "EQ") (valuel 32)) (aval3 of PCBSJVALUE (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.66)) (aval4 ofPCBSJVALUE (condition "EQ") (valuel 11)) (aval5 ofPCBSJVALUE (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular")) (aval6 of PCBS JVALUE (condition "EQ") (valuel "True")) (aval7 of PCBS JVALUE (condition "EQ") (valuel "False"))) In the foregoing example of PCBS fact, the instance named "attrl" in deffacts construct of pcbs component has value instance named "avail" referring to value which is 80.34 ft for location "GFL". 72 5.7 CLIPS Template for M&RBS Similar to a PCBS component, a M & R B S component can be expressed as a class with attributes such as name, path, code, description, type, attributes (i.e. parameters and / or conditions). Values are assigned to the attributes (i.e. parameter or condition) with corresponding conditions (i.e. EQ, LT, GT, N E , etc.). The static structure U M L diagram is shown in figure 5.2. 0..* . 1..* Component Attribute -Name -Path -Code -Description -Type -Attributes -Attribute Name -Class Name -Value Type -Unit -has -has 1 -has 0.1 -has Attribute Value -Relation -Condition -Value t -Value 2 Figure 5.2. U M L static structure diagram of the association between M & R B S component, its attributes, and their values. Deftemplate and defclass constructs are used to describe a method statement and its constituent methods and resources. Since the concept of location does not apply to a M & R B S component, we need only one class object, i.e., M&RBSVALUE class object for expressing attribute values with their conditions. A M & R B S template takes the following form: ;;; Template for describing M&RBS component;;; (deftemplate mrbs component (slot name) (slot path) (slot code) (slot description) (slot componentJtype) (multislot attributes) 73 (multislotparameter_or_condition (default "Parameter" "Condition")) (multislot attribute Jype (default "Quantitative" "Boolean" "Linguistic")) (multislot attribute_yalues) ) ;;; Class for giving values to attributes of M&RBS component;;; (defclass MRBSJVALUE (is-a USER) (role concrete) (pattern-match reactive) (slot unit (access read-write)) (slot condition (access read-write)) (slot valuel (access read-write)) (slot value2 (access read-write)) ) Here is an example of a M & R B S fact. (deffacts mrbs components80 (mrbs component (name "mrbsl") (code "WGang") (path "ROOT.FormCol. WGang ") (description "Column Formwork Method - Wooden Gangform") (component type "Method") (attributes "Rate of Production" "Min. Reuse Required" "Storage Space Length Required" "Storage Space Width Required" "Allowable Rate of Pour" "Allowable Tie Spacing") (parameter or condition "Parameter" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition") (attributeJype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute values [atvall] [atval2] [atval3] [atval4] [atval5] [atvaW]) ) ) The construct defmstances DATA80 has the instances of class M&RBS JVALUE i.e., "atvall (atval2, atval3, etc.) of MRBSVALUE", which are used to define values associated with them . The units and conditions associated with the values are also provided. (defmstances DATA80 (atvall of MRBS_VALUE (unit "ft2/mhr") (condition "EQ") (valuel 35)) (atval2 of MRBS JVALUE (unit "No.") (condition "EQ") (valuel 30)) (atval3 of MRBS JVALUE (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 50)) (atval4 of MRBS JVALUE (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 30)) (atval5 of MRBS JVALUE (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 8)) 74 (atval6 of MRBS_VALUE (unit "ft") (condition "WR") (valuel 2)(value2 3))) In this example of a M & R B S fact about method Wooden Gang Form (for a column component), the value to the attribute i.e. parameter "Rate of Production" has an instance "atvall of MRBS_VALUE" with value equal to 35 ft2 / manhr. The M & R B S fact also provides code, path, description, attributes, parameter or condition, and type of attribute information about method Wooden Gang Form. 5.8 Expressing Hierarchical Relationships in CLIPS We have expressed the hierarchical relationships in the PCBS and M & R B S using two basic CLIPS constructs: deftemplate and defrule. The deftemplate construct is used to define two types of component relationships i.e., parent component - child component relationship and ancestor component - descendant component relationship. (deftemplate parent (slot parent component) (slot child component) ) (deftemplate ancestor (slot ancestor component) (slot descendant component) ) With the help of softcode2 and predefined templates, the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies are expressed in terms of facts. The example facts of PCBS component relationship are as shown below. First fact describes that the parent component "Slab " has a child component (i.e. child) "SIBay" (i.e. Slab-bay). Second fact depicts that the parent component "HorizontalEle" (i.e. Horizontal element is a, subsystem component) has a child component "Slab".. Finally, the third fact shows that the parent component "SuperSTR" (i.e. superstructure system component) has a child component "HorizontalEle ". (deffacts relationships_pcbs (parent (parent component "Slab")(child component "SIBay")) (parent (parent_component "HorizontalEle") (child_component''Slab")) (parent (parent component "SuperSTR") (child component "HorizontalEle")) ) 2 The softcode is an external program written in C & C++ to provide REPCON data to the CLIPS environment in the form of "facts". 75 The following two rules are used for relationship interpretation. ;;; Rule to establish ancestor-descendant relationship;;; ;;; between parent component and child component;;; (defrule ancestor 1 (parent (parent component ?parent) (child component ?child)) => (assert (ancestor (ancestor component ?parent) (descendant component ?child))) ) ;;; Rule to establish ancestor-descendant;;; ;;; relationship between all other components ;;; (defrule ancestor2 (parent (parent component ?parent) (child component ?child)) (ancestor (ancestor component ?comp) (descendant component ?parent)) => (assert (ancestor (ancestor component ?comp) (descendant component ?child))) ) The ancestorl rule says that "If there is any fact which has a parent component -child component relationship, then assert (i.e. make it a "fact") that the parent component is also the ancestor component of the child component." This rule establishes the ancestor-descendant relationship between project components to give "ancestor facts", which are used in the ancestor2 rule along with "parent facts" to establish a complete hierarchical relationship. For example, slab-bay is a part of slab that in turn is a part of superstructure. Thus, the superstructure becomes the ancestor component of slab-bay as well as the slab. This type of relationship helps in causal analysis, as a slab-bay can also be present in the substructure system, which is different than the slab-bay being present in the superstructure system. The foregoing constructs help provide a comprehensive description of the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies with their components, component's attributes and values, and component inter-relationships. This description is available as universally accessible facts within the CLIPS environment, and can be interpreted with the help of production rules to determine the feasibility of a particular method or a set of methods i.e., a method statement. 76 5.9 Expressing Method Selection Knowledge in CLIPS Method selection knowledge is present in the form of independent chunks of knowledge such as the feasibility parameters or conditions of methods. We have used the CLIPS defrule construct to form production rules about method selection. A rule in CLIPS is a "collection of conditions and the actions to be taken if the conditions are met". These rules are fired based on the existence of facts or instances. The inference engine fires rules by pattern-matching rule conditions with the existing fact-lists and/or instance-lists. 5.9.1 Examples of Rules and Their Modeling in CLIPS Syntax • The rule for checking "uniformity of slab-bay" to test the applicability of a flying truss formwork method selection for high-rise construction can be stated as follows: "If the slab-bay length and width is uniform for high-rise floors, and the available reuses are more than 6, then the Flying truss method is feasible for those floors." The production rule performs the following checks: (1), the slab-bay belongs to the superstructure (see figure 5.3); (2), the operation in the method statement has Flying trass method (see figure 5.4); (3), the slab-bay that belongs to slab element is uniform in length and width for all of its locations; (4), the method has attribute " M i n . Reuse Required". Finally the rule gives the result about the available reuses and feasibility of the Flying truss method. Check 1: (defrule slab_uniformity_reuses_checkJlyingtrussslab (ancestor (ancestor component ?ancestorl)(descendant_component ?descendant!)) (pcbs component (name ?ancestorl) (code ?codel)) (pcbs_component (name ?descendantl) (code ?code2)(description ?desc2)) (test (and(eq "SupSTR"(sub-string 1 6 ?codel)) (eq "SIBay"(sub-string 1 5 ?code2)))) The above stated condition checks that the pcbs component with code "SIBay" (i.e. slab-bay) belongs to pcbs component with code "SupSTR " (i.e. superstructure). 77 C F R E P C O N 5 . 2 0 - P R O J U 3 \ T E S T - [Project P C B S ] f,Nei, Project_View irlemgig^^iCT,'; Standards PCBS Windd S~ GIA Project Residential High-Rise Project =•• SiteLoc. Location Set Site Location B- Tower Subproject High Rise Tower - ' • EH • TLoc Location Set High'Rise Tower Locations . ; E3-SupSTR . System .High rise.Tower Super Structure i B-VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components - . i EH- Cols Element Columns El Core Element High Rise Tower Core : EH-ShWall Element Shear Walls E3--HoriEle Subsystem Horizontal Components B- Slab Element High Rise Floor Slab. - ... , n ffTTHMTITIHiiTlillT^ ; --SiBandl SubSubelement Slabband 1 S- SIBay2 Subelement SlabBay B L. SiBandl 5 B SIBay3 Subel SiBandl , i • B • 5IBay4 'subeij SiBandl 1 B • SIBayS Subejl SiBandl jl B SIBay6 Subel SiBandl EH- SlBay7 . Subel (b) [Ajlribules j Values | Standird iTD'; Flecrad: | Aotiv-esj Pay»ems| QualtjiMgt] Changes |[Project He-.ords | Mt-.o | Path GlAJower.SupSTR HorEleSlab. Code. jSIBayl Description jSlabBay A~" * Attribute -. El- SIBayS Subel| S • SlBay9 Subel1 SIBay 10 Subel il-SlBayll- Sube'! S3 SlBayl2 Sube] © SlBayl3 SubeJ: j - SlBayl4 Subel j--SlBayl5 Subej I- SIBay 16 Sube! i 5lBayl7 Sube'' i SIBay 18 Sube SlBaylQ Sube SubSTR System High Ris -Lowrise Subproject Town Hoi < Description j" U Class • 8/Q/L jt Unit Fojmwork Quantity * Rebar Quantity Concrete Quantity Surface Area Time Frame for Concreting Time Frame for Rebar Time Frame for Formwork Shape Slump Range Max. Size of Aggregate Number of Elements Length W/rtrh Y Area Properties Y.. Material Quantities Y.. Area Properties Y.. Area Properties Virtrh Duration Properties Duration Properties Duration Properties Physical Properties Concrete Properties Concrete Properties General Properties Dimension Properties Drmenstnn Prnnwrms . 112 Tn-yd3 112 hr hi hr No. ft fl m nherrt attribute defmitron from above level Add | De Figure 5.3. (a) PCBS hierarchy with slab-bay components belonging to superstructure; (b) Component "SlabBay A " with its attributes. Check 2: (ancestor (ancestor component ?ancestor) (descendant component ?descendant)) (mrbs component (name ?ancestor) (code ?code3)) (mrbs component (name ?descendant) (code ?code4)(description ?descl)) (test (and (eq "FormSlab"(sub-string 1 8 ?code3)) (eq "FlTruss"(sub-string 1 7 ?code4)))) 78 The condition checks that the mrbs_component with code "FITruss" (i.e. method Flying Truss) belongs to mrbs component with code "FormSlab" (i.e. operation Form Slab). («) I S R E P C O N 5 . Z D - P R U J U 3 Its I File Pro]ect_View , ],* 7>r. J •_ ci" ' Standards Standard M&RBS Window Help Sr. incl . l l l l MftRBS .•••V,'>' Parameters/Conditions J Fragnet j Feasibility Rules | "Template Construction of typical floor of alHigh rise " Rath lROOT*FSmS"lab ; ^ C * ' <• Code: JFITruss Type j ' ' i ^ ' ""It m Description: |F|ying Truss Template |Slab Forming Techniques ilSlab-Form.FITruss Parameters/Coridihons -Template -rVHK.." Conv Sewer Replacement-M-s Construction of typical floor;« Concrete Placement with Pur^  Method Statement for Const' TrencNess (McrotunneBtng);: TrenchlessfMfcrotunneling) S Pump House Construction fo PumpHouse , Construction of Typical Floors Construction of typical floor j Gang Form i High Rise Concrete pumping j Slicklme pumping Supporting F Placing Flatwork - Slab placirj Excavation Support Techniqi' Wal Forming - Gang Form Sy' Excavation or Trenching Tec Shield Tunneling MT Method-i MT mvoNing Soil Jetting at tl|# Dewatenng Techniques ' |* Column Forming Techniques | Column and Seam Forming Ti* Rebar Methods ( Wafl Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming Techniques Slab Forming - Flyforms Rebar Placement Methods Slab &. Wal Forming Techniqu_J Core Forming Techniques Concrete Pumping - Line Purr. Concrete Pumping - Boom Pro Concrete Pladng Techniques^  Separate Placer Boom Mount fj Curi'jlru'r^on of ^ /pical floor of a High-rise ' ;"'*' . j- ROOT Method Statement * Htgh-rise Superstructure Construction • l^J-FormCol Operation Formwork for Columns | S" WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork 13 • ReberCol Operation Construction of typical Hoor of a High-rise } E& PreFab Method Rebar Prefabrication * , ConcCol • ^Operation Concrete placing for Columns • • . | EE) CrBuck . Method ConcreteTracing with Crane Bucket B-FormWafl Operation Formwork for Wals I & WGang Method Wooden Gang Forrnwcrk • B RebarWafl Operation Rebar placing for Wa8s ' \ E3- PPreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication B- ConcWafl Operation. Concrete placement for Wals . j tS-CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket E^FormCore Operation Formwork for Core \ El- AJumpFm Method Aluminum Waler Jumpform (=}• RebarCore Operation Rebar placement for Core I $)•• PPreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication' $ConcCore' Operation Concrete placement for. Core , Bv.CrBuck : Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket . . E3" FormSlab Operation Formwork for Stab ' - * (— FTruss Resource Flying Truss Formwork for Slab r - Crane Resource Piener Hammerhead Tower Crane j - ---FCrew Resource Formwork Crew , • RebarSlab: Operation Rebar Placement for Slab | B-ReAsm Method Rebar Assembly ' B'ConcSlab Operation Concrete placement for Slab EE- CrBuck Method Concrete Ptacing with Crane & Bucket Description 1 p, [§las^B»88lS^^BI B/Q/L I Unit :Rate of Production i N. p.." Production Data "Q" fthr . . . . .j Min. Reuse Required N. c . Production Data Q No. Site Assembly Space Length Required N. c : Tech. Feasibility Q ft . • Site Assembly Space Width Required N. C: Tech/Feasibility Q ft . • ••! M in. Assembly S pace Area R equired •.'TV. N. c . Tech. Feasibility Q , ft2 i Economical Length of SlabBay . N. c . Designer's Spec Q ft Economical Width of SlabBay N. c . Designer's Spec Q ft Storey Height Range :•• N. c. Designer's Spec . Q ft I~ Inherit attribute definition from above level Add J El Delete Edt "?w> ~m* -3^ . yr<« 'Eancel* Figure 5.4. (a) M & R B S hierarchy with Method "Flying Truss Formwork" for Operation "Formwork for slab"; (b) Method "Flying Truss Formwork" with its parameters and conditions. Check 3: (pcbs component (name ?descendant 1) (code ?code2) (attributes $?ahead "Length " $?atail) (attribute_values $?avhead ?vall $?avtail)) (test (eq (length$ $?ahead)(length $?avhead))) (test (eq (lengths $?atail)(length $?avtail))) 79 (pcbs_component (name ?descendant 1) (code ?code2) (attributes $?aheadl "Width" $?ataill) (attribute_yalues $?avheadl ?val2 $?avtaill)) (test (eq (lengths $?ahead 1)(length $?avheadl))) (test (eq (lengths $?ataill)(length $?avtaill))) (pcbs component (name ?descendant 1) (code ?code2) (attributes $?ahead2 "Shape" $?atail2) (attribute values $?avhead2 ?val3 $?avtail2)) (test (eq (lengths $?ahead2)(length $?avhead2))) (test (eq (length$ $?atail2)(length $?avtail2))) The condition (Check 3) tests that the pcbs component with code "code2 " (i.e. slab-bay) has attributes Length, Width, and Shape. The vail, val2, and val3 are the temporary variables storing the values of these attributes. In the above condition (Check 3) the wild cards3 $?ahead, $?atail, $?avhead, and $?avtail are used for attribute Length. By testing equality of $?ahead and $?avhead as well as $?atail and $?avtail the condition ensures that the temporary variable vail refers to the appropriate attribute value. Check 4: (mrbs component (name ?descendant) (code ?code4) (attributes $?ahead3"Min. Reuse Required" $?atail3) (attribute_values $?avhead3 ?val4 $?avtail3)) (test (eq (lengths $?ahead3)(length $?avhead3))) (test (eq (lengths $?atail3)(length $?avtail3))) The above portion of the condition checks that the mrbs component with code "code4" has attribute (i.e. parameter or condition) named "Min. Reuse Required". The "val4 " is the pointer to the attribute value. The action part of the rule is expressed as follows: => (bind ?lmax (lengthS (send ?vall get-location Jist))) (bind ?al (send (nth$ 1 (send ?vall get-attribute value Jist)) get-valuel)) (bind ?a2 (send (nth$ 1 (send ?val2 get-attribute value Jist))\ get-valuel)) (bind ?a3 (send (nth$ 1 (send ?val3 get-attribute value list)) get-valuel)) (bind ?a4 (send ?val4 get-valuel)) (bind ?ll ?lmax) (bind ?reuse 0) 3 The multifield wildcards denoted by a dollar sign followed by a question mark ($?), matches any value in zero or more fields in a pattern entity. 80 The above part of the action binds the values from the pointers to temporary variables, e.g., Imax stores the number of locations for the attribute Length, al stores the value of Length for first location in the location list, a2 stores the value of Width for first location in the location list, a3 stores the value of Shape for first location in the location list. (while (> ?ll 0) (bind ?a5 (send (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?vall get-attribute_yalueJist)) get-value 1)) (bind ?a6 (send (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?val2 get-attribute valueJist)) get-valuel)) (bind ?a7 (send (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?val3 get-attribute value list)) get-valuel)) (if (and (eq ?al ?a5)(eq ?a2 ?a6)(eq ?a3 ?a7)) then (bind ?reuse (+ ?reuse 1))) (bind ?al ?a5) (bind ?a2 ?a6) (bind ?a3 ?a7) (bind ?ll (- ?ll 1))) The above stated portion of the action is the procedural function While loop. It checks the Length, Width, and Shape values for slab-bay for all of its locations and counts reuses. (if(not(>= ?reuse ?a4)) then (printout formworkFile "The Method \ ""?descl "\"for PCBS component \""?desc2 "\"" crlf" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses " ?reuse "." crlf crlf) else (printout formworkFile "The Method \ ""?descl "\ "for PCBS component \""?desc2 "\"" crlf " is feasible due to sufficient reuses " ?reuse "." crlf crlf)) ) The final portion of action the procedural function If-Then-Else, checks to see if the available reuses are greater than or less than "Min. Reuse Required". It then prints the result about feasibility of the method to a separate text file named "formworkFile". 81 • The rule for checking feasibility of Separate placing boom method for core concrete placement can be stated as follows: "The separate placing boom method is feasible when concrete volume for vertical elements is at least 40 to 50 m 3 , i.e., 52 to 65 yd 3 and concrete volume per floor is 235 y d 3 . " The production rule performs the following checks: (1) the core belongs to superstructure (see figure 5.5); (2) the superstructure has subsystem vertical elements (see figure 5.6); (3) the operation has method Separate placing boom; (4) the superstructure and vertical elements and the method have the required attributes. The point to note here is that even though this rule is used to check feasibility of Separate placing boom method for core element, according to the feasibility factor knowledge we had, the concrete quantity of vertical element subsystem (i.e. parent node of core element) is used, which is a sum of concrete quantities for all the vertical elements under it (i.e. column, wall, core, etc.). This is partly because the method does not have any specific feasible concrete quantity requirement for core elements as it has in case of vertical elements (in general) irrespective of their types. Check 1: (defrule feasibility_concrete_placement_separate_placing_boom_core (ancestor (ancestor component ?ancestor) (descendant component ?descendant)) (pcbs_component (name ?ancestor) (code ?codel)) (pcbs component (name ?descendant) (code ?code2)) (test (and(eq "SupSTR"(sub-string 1 6 ?codel)) (eq "Core"(sub-string 14 ?code2)))) This condition checks that the pcbs component with code "code2" (i.e. core) belongs to pcbs component with code "codel" (i.e. superstructure). Check 2: (ancestor (ancestor component ?ancestor) (descendant component ?descendant 1)) (pcbs component (name ?'descendant!) (code ?code3)) (test (eq "VertEle" (sub-string 1 7 ?code3))) This condition checks that the pcbs component with code "code3" (i.e. vertical element system) belongs to pcbs component with code "codel" (i.e. superstructure). 82 Check 3: (ancestor(ancestor component ?ancestor 1) (descendant component ?descendant2)) (mrbs component (name ?ancestorl) (code ?code5)) (mrbs component (name ?descendant!) (code ?code6)) (test (and (eq "ConcCol"(sub-string 1 7 ?code5)) (eq "SpBoom "(sub-string 1 6 ?code6)))) This condition checks that the mrbs component with code "code6" (i.e. Separate placing boom method) belongs to mrbs component with code "code5" (i.e. Operation concrete core). («) REPCON 5.20-PR0303\TEST - [Project PCBS| |!^] File Project_View: . ifiernijI^ gLyj^ '' Standards PCBS- • Windtl SI I?r (b) Attnbules | Values | Standard PCBS Records | Activities | Pay items Path: GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle iiGode: [Core EH GIA Project Residential High-Rise Project , I—.SiteLoc Location Set Site Location ••• Tower Subproject High Rise Tower ft- TLoc Location Set. High Rise Tower Locations, E3 SupSTR System High rise Tower Super Structure \ VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components • 3 Cols Element Columns R! Element High Rise Tower Core Descriptors)High Rise Tower Core Type Jd-Attribute-^  !•• Szone Content Shear zones of rebar a-CWaill Subelement Core Wall A . HCWall2 Subelement Core Wall B CWall3 Subelement Core Wall C CWall4 Subelement Core Wall D •! ;--CWall5 Subelement Core Wall E -i EJ"CWall6 Subelement Core Wall F -i EB ShWall Element Shear Walls H • HoriEle Subsystem Horizontal Components • - .-SubSTR, System High Rise Tower Sub Structure -• Lowrise. Subproject Town Houses Descrif •• 1 |' Class 67Q/L 1 Ui**»V<!'.: <*->..- . Jormwork Q uantity j Y.; Area Properties Q ft.2 Rebar Quantity Y.. Material Quantities Q Tn 1 Concrete Quantity Y.. Area Properties Q yd3 Surface Area Y.. Area Properties Q ft2 Time Frame for Concreting Y.. Duration Properties Q hr Time Frame for Rebar Y.. Duration Properties Q hr Time Frame for Formwork Y.. Duration Properties Q. hr Shape Y.. Physical Properties L Slump Range Y.. Concrete Properties Q in Max. Size of Aggregate Y.. Concrete Properties Q in Rate of Pour Y.. Concrete Properties . Q ft . ' . ' Length N. Dimension Properties Q ft Hfinht ~ N_ Dimension PrnnfirttRX n . . ft < | |f<; Inherit attribute definition.from above level .Add Delete 4: Edit. Cancel Figure 5.5. (a) PCBS hierarchy with component "Core" belonging to superstructure; (b) Component "Core" with its attributes. 83 («) BPREPCIIN !>.?I)-I>KII1II.I< IISI [I'lojrrl PLHSl j^? File Fro]Oct_ViL'w . . . . St.nd.irris Standard M&RBsV Window Help;. (A) Standard M8;IUib kpTemDlate: ConstructionoMyptcatfloorsof aHigh-R| 'IPafcROOTCohcCote. i i Code-' SpBoom ' Description: I Concrete Typo pi" ~> URL Template Conv Sewer Replacement-^  Construction of typical floojj Concrete Placement with PII Method Statement For Conij Trenchless (Microtunnellmg' Trenchless(Microtunneling)' Pump House Construction fu PumpHouse i; Construction of Typical Floes Construction of typical floos Gang Form High Rise Concrete pumpine Slickline pumping Supportim Wal Forming - Gang Form Excavation or Trenching Te Shield Tunnelling MT Methoi MT.invotving Soil Jetting at i Dewatering Techniques j Column Forming Technique; rnil imn an<l Roam Fnrm^n I Tree Structure jj|jjjf|p Construction of typical floor of a High-Rise 13- RebarCol H ConcCol EJFormWall BRebarWall IJIConcWall EI-- FormCore B- ROOT Method Statement Construction of typical floor of a High-Rise B- FormCol Operation Formwork for columns Operation .Rebar Placing for columns Operation Concrete placing for.columns ,. , . Operation Formwork of walls ' Operation. Rebar placement for wall Operation Concrete placement for wall Operation Formwork for core E3-RebarCore Operation Rebar placement for core & Conctore . Operation Concrete"placement for core ,-• ' j-SepBoom Resource Separate Placing Boom j • BoomMast Resource Boom Mast TG 10 Tower v - Line Pump Resource Line Pump ~ ~ B FormSlab ; Operation Formwork for slab•< ' -.- . . . , • rj}--RebarSlab OperationRebar placing for slab FJ3ConcSlab Operation Concrete pladng for slab ...-v. jbTemplatK!?jConcrete Placing Techniques "3 Path: |R00T.Mast-Boom \ Parameters/Conditions Description. II 1.1 P.!t Pass i'BA3/l.f Unit-. Parking Space Length Required • N. P.. Parking Space Width Required v. ;,. N P.. Parking Space Area Required:. N P.. Base Line Length Required N.. P.. Thrust Block Space Length . N. P.. Thrust Block Space Width N. P.. Max. Vertical Reach N.'P.'. Max. Horizontal Reach _ , N. P.. Max..Size of Aggregate -•'.-- ., N.P.-. Rate ol Placement "' ' N.'P.. Vert. Element Concrete Volume Required N. P.. Hori. Element Concrete Volume Required N. P.. Concrete Volume Required Per Floor N. P.. Breakeven Concrete Volume for Pumping N. P.. I - Inherit atli bule deH'ion Iron above level Tech. Feasibility Q ' ft Tech. Feasibility Q ft-. :' Tech. Feasibility- Q ft2 Tech. Feasibility' Q • ft Tech. Feasibility " Q ft Tech. Feasibility Q ft Tech. Feasibility Q ft Tech. Feasibility Q • ft . . Tech. Feasibility^ '-: :.; - Q " '•*' in. Production Data; Q - , yd3/hr Tech. Feasibility Q yd3 Tech. Feasibility Q yd3 Tech. Feasibility Q • yd3 Production Data Q yd3 | IflBIliliB OK-"id;t--",~ Cancel' Figure 5.6. (a) M & R B S hierarchy with Method "Separate Placing Boom" for Operation " Concrete placement for core"; (b) Method "Separate Placing Boom" with its parameters and conditions. Check 3: (pcbs component (name ?ancestor) (code ?codel) (attributes $?aheadl "Concrete Quantity" $?ataill) (attribute values $?avheadl ?vall $?avtaill)) (test (eq (lengths $?aheadl)(length $?avheadl))) (test (eq (lengths $?ataill)(length $?avtaill))) 84 (pcbs_component(name ?descendant 1) (code ?code3) (attributes $?ahead2 "Concrete Quantity" $?atail2) (attribute values $?avhead2 ?val2 $?avtail2)) (test (eq (lengthS $?ahead2)(length $?avhead2))) (test (eq (lengthS $?atail2)(length $?avtail2))) (mrbs component (name ?descendant2)(code ? code6) (description ?desc2) (attributes $?ahead5 "Feasible Concrete Quantity For Verticals" $?atail5) (attributejyalues $?avhead5 ?val5 $?avtail5)) (test (eq (lengthS $?'ahead5)(length $?avhead5))) (test (eq (lengths $?atail5)(length $?avtail5))) (mrbs component (name ?descendant2)(code ?code6)(description ?desc2) (attributes $?ahead6 "Feasible Concrete Quantity Per Cycle" $?atail6) (attribute values S?avhead6 ?val6 $?avtail6)) (test (eq (lengthS $?ahead6)(length $?avhead6))) (test (eq (lengthS $?atail6)(length $?avtail6))) The condition checks that the mrbs_component with code "code6" (i.e. separate placing boom method) has attributes (i.e. parameters or conditions) named "Feasible Concrete Quantity For Verticals" and "Feasible Concrete Quantity Per Cycle". The condition also checks that the pcbs component with code "codel" (i.e. superstructure) and code "code3" (i.e. vertical element system) has an attribute named "Concrete Quantity". As explained previously the use of wildcards (aheadl, ataill, avheadl, avtaill, etc.) ensures that the appropriate attribute value is assigned to the attribute value pointer (vail, val2, val3, etc.). The action part of the rule is a follows: => (bind $?listl (createS)) (bind $?list2 (createS)) (bind $?list3 (createS)) (bind S?list4 (createS)) (bind ?a5 (send ?val5 get-valuel)) (bind ?a6 (send ?val6 get-valuel)) (bind ?lmax (lengthS (send ?vall get-location Jist))) (bind ?ll ?lmax) This above part of the action binds the values from the pointers to temporary variables and creates empty lists (listl, Ust2, etc.) to display results in the form of strings. (while (> ?ll 0) 85 (bind ?al (send (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?vall get-attribute_value_list)) get-valuel)) (bind ?a2 (send (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?val2 get-attribute_yalue_list)) get-valuel)) (if(< ?al ?a5) then (bind ?tempi 1) (bind $?listl (createS $?listl (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?vall get-location list)))) else (bind $?list2 (createS $?list2 (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?vall get-location_list))))) (if(< ?al ?a6) then (bind ?temp2 1) (bind $?list3 (createS $?list3 (nthS (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?val2 get-location_list)))) else (bind $?list4 (createS S?list4 (nth$ (- ?lmax(- ?ll 1)) (send ?val2 get-location_list))))) (bind ?ll (- ?ll 1))) In the forgoing, the procedural function While loop checks the attribute values to determine the feasibility of Separate placing boom method for core concrete placement. (if (eq ?tempi 1) then (printout t "The Method \ ""?descl "\" is infeasible due to " " concrete quantity for Verticals is less than required "?a5" at location " $?listl "." t) else (printout t "The Method \ ""?descl "\". is feasible considering " " concrete quantity for Verticals at location " $?Hst2 "." t)) (if(eq ?temp2 1) then (printout t "The Method \ ""?descl "\" is infeasible due to " " concrete quantity for whole construction cycle is less than required "?a6" at location " S?list3 "." t) else (printout t "The Method \ ""?descl "\" is feasible considering " " concrete quantity for whole construction cycle at location " $?Hst4 "." t))) Finally the rule prints out the list of feasible and infeasible locations, which can help the user to make the decision regarding selection of Separate placing boom considering the concrete quantity to be placed. Other feasibility checking production rules can be formed using the feasibility factors knowledge, which is listed in Appendix-A. 86 Several closing observations are offered here. First, once the user becomes familiar with CLIPS' syntax, it is reasonably easy, i f somewhat lengthy to formulate meaningful feasibility rules. Second, for the approach to be applicable in practice, an interface for expressing rules in more natural language needs to be developed. Third, having to express feasibility checks in the form of rules is of great assistance in making explicit the accumulated knowledge and experience of construction personnel. And finally, there is a need of modeling "judgment" in the formulation of rules. Actual feasibility reasoning is not always black and white. For example, a condition may not be fulfilled at every location instance; it may be sufficient that it is met at "most" instances. 87 Chapter 6. Reasoning Schema 6.1 Overview Explained in this chapter is the schematic representation of rule based reasoning for method selection and feasibility analysis. The steps need to be performed in rule based reasoning are also elaborated. 6.2 Objectives of Reasoning Schema The major obstacle to overcome in the reasoning schema was "mapping" the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies. These hierarchies allow significant flexibility in their configuration. They can vary not only in terms of the desired scope of reasoning i.e., superstructure, substructure, or the whole project, but also according to the type of construction project such as repetitive or non-repetitive project. Thus, the reasoning schema should be general enough to handle various project scenarios. The association of production rules either with a method or a method statement is an important issue because of the flexible nature of the hierarchies. 6.3 Reasoning Schema Reasoning approaches may be classified in two categories, namely, "Bottom-up" approach and "Top-down" approach. The bottom-up approach involves feasibility reasoning during individual method and resource selection. The rule files associated with individual methods or resources could be triggered while copying a method or resource over to the method statement hierarchy. However, this approach requires a large amount of contextual information to be embedded in the feasibility rules. For example, for selection of a particular method or resource, one has to check the operation and the method statement context in which it wil l be used. A resource can be used by a number of methods e.g., tower crane is used by Crane & Bucket concrete placement method as well as it is used by Flying Truss formwork Method. Feasibility checking for both scenarios simultaneously is difficult to achieve. Compatibility of construction methods is certainly an important issue; for example, to achieve faster construction cycle using tunnel formwork the wall rebar is generally prefabricated. Such method and resource compatibility checks are difficult to perform in the bottom-up approach. We have therefore used a "Top-down" reasoning approach i.e. the method statement reasoning approach. A predefined method statement embodies the necessary contextual information by defining its scope and level of generality. Checking of the resource and method compatibility, in the current implementation, is left to the user. The method statement reasoning schema treats method statement as the basic unit for feasibility reasoning. As discussed in section 3.3.2, a method statement is comprised of 88 operations, methods, and resources. Every method statement has one rule file associated with it, which contains all the production rules regarding feasibility of its constituent methods and resources for the context represented by the method statement. This is important to note, as both methods and resources can be applicable to a variety of contexts. It is the context that dictates what properties of the construction methods and resources are relevant to the project components at hand. Discussed in the following sections are selected issues and the following steps involved in the method statement reasoning schema: 1. Formation of Project PCBS Hierarchy; 2. Exposing Project PCBS Facts, Instances, and Relationships to CLIPS; 3. Formation of Method Statement Hierarchy; 4. Formation of Method Statement Rule File; 5. Exposing M & R B S Facts, Instances, and Relationships to CLIPS; 6. Reasoning with CLIPS Inference Engine; 7. Result Analysis and Modifications to the Method Statement. The schematic diagram of steps performed while reasoning is shown in figure 6.1. 6.3.1 Formation of Project PCBS Hierarchy The formation of the PCBS hierarchy has been discussed in section 3.2.2. 6.3.2 Exposing Project PCBS Facts, Instances, and Relationships to CLIPS Converting the Project PCBS hierarchy to CLIPS syntax is a crucial step for feasibility reasoning. The data from REPCON's PCBS data structure must be expressed in predefined PCBS template format so that the CLIPS inference engine can validate and define the data as facts and instances in its working memory. These facts and instances in the working memory are used in the evaluation of production rules regarding feasibility of the construction methods. The hierarchical relationships of parent-child and ancestor-descendant relationships also need to be expressed in a predefined relationship template format, as discussed in section 5.8. 89 I «0 .3 • c n <0 •a tn g to 43 o co a. •1' ' t 1 -: ' * * •' c . 0 c o CO Q . to E o o a. u .• 0 U vf O a CL:X.-"3 .c .a CO •a i5 « •a to S <* Ui S ' C ' o t 5 - 2 « 42 S o = « _ o _ o E E •C 42 <B : n a : 5 re re :s re « o (A 0 ,:{; • ' • : £ O to re 9 OC T3 U E i i o o •>» a o o ffl o" E o a o u is CO 00 8 CO u, C c S K i T to o a> I 42 a T3 9 ra tn (0 CO O -0. 0 8 o CO 33 <fl CO ™ 7_> Q. cc iZ « CO o 0. >i o c 2. 2 o o a. ir .« •' E-c o w >... c Ui & • c -e . o w w • CC 3 in » or 0 i i-i bO a Q s <u o 'S o CO ca I. s oc 90 Subroutines coded in C and C++ have been used to expose the PCBS data structure to CLIPS as shown in figure 6.2. "Softcode 1" is used for exposing PCBS facts and instances, while "Softcode 2" is used for exposing PCBS component relationships. These softcodes produce two separate text files, which are then loaded in to the CLIPS environment. J S R E P C O N 5 . 2 0 - P R O J 0 3 \ 1 E S T - [Project P C B S ] FJe fto;«ft_Wiw ' ajTdjrds PCBS vJ Q » Project ResBentwl Hjh-Sts* Project tSteLoc location Set Site Location Tower Subproject Hrjh Rise Tower jpjlfx . ..UW S^et-.HijhtoTpwffUxat^  (j'SupSTR Systati Hghrise Tower Super Structure' Sl-VertSe Subsystem VerticalCortponents I Etr-Cols Qement Coturms j k-ShWal Element ShearWak EFHorHe . Subsystem Hcxfeortal Components 7-B'Sab ' 'Bt>ri»i*;HrshRi»Ho«SW,/^  ihSBayl •. Sijelement SabBayA S-St6ay2 Subelement SlabBay B Subetement SlabBayE .. Subelement SlabBay0 i-SBsrt i-SBayS Ep-SJBay? ES-S1Bay8 Ep-SBsy9 • EfrSBsylO • : §;S8ayti. rjhSBayl2 • ES-SBayl3 • ,|rSBayl4' hSBaylS |-™SBayl6 ' •: tstuayie LsBayW SubSTR System r^ r^ TovrerSub Lowrae Subproject Town Houses Subefement SlabBay F Subelement StsbBayG Subetement SlabBay H Subelerfieflt SlabBay I Subetanent SfeoBayAl Subtfcmtnt SlabBay Bl Subetement SabBsyCl Subefenent StabBeyDl Subelerrient SlabBay El ,si*eterr««,StabBsy Fl Subetement SJabBayGl Subetarrent SlabBay HI SAdrmert .SWbBay Jl 'Subderoerrt .SlabBay Kl Subetaent SlabBay 11 J L . Project PCBS component Hierarchy Project PCBS Facts and Instances (Itcbs^ ooriijionent (naae "24") ,'. -.(code ^SiBaBdl") (path "GIA.Toirer.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SIBay.SiBandl") (description "SlabBaotil Belongs to SlabBay CI") ' (coaiftOEent^ tyipe, "SubSufeeleaent") (attributes "Sidth" "Depth") (attcibute_type "Quantitative* "Quantitative") - (attribute values (atttl43] [attrl44]) J component, .component component component component component component component component component-component component component component component component component component "2")) "3"H "•!")) "5")) "6")J "7?1 ). "S»j ) ' WI'l-"10")t -ii->) :"."")). "ij")l " H - l l "VS-)| "16")| »17«)"> -18")) "19")) Relationships between Project PCBS components Figure 6.2. Exporting PCBS components in terms of facts, instances, and relationships to CLIPS. 6.3.3 Formation of Method Statement Hierarchy The formation of M & R B S hierarchy is described in section 3.3.2. 91 6.3.4 Formation of Method Statement Rule File The formation of the method statement rule file is performed in tandem with the formation of the method statement. As shown in the object model diagram of method statement (figure 6.3), only one rule file is associated with a method statement. This rule file contains production rules related to the constituent methods and resources for the application context of the method statement. -has Method Statement -Name -Path -Code -Description |-Type : -Attributes Has 0.1 Rule File Name Path -Code •belongs to '-has i. 1 Operatiori Name.: '• ' Path: : ^?de;. Description Type Attributes 0.1 -has -has -has 0..* Resource Name Path'"-.. -Code -Description Type -Attributes -belongs to 0.* 1.. Method |-Naitie:'-'. -Path -Code Description •-Type ;• Attributes -has 0.1 -has Figure 6.3. U M L static structure diagram of Method Statement and its constituents. On the other hand, the methods that are present in the standard M & R B S library have associated "Rule repositories" containing production rules. As shown in the object model diagram (figure 6.4), one method can have only one rule repository. For example, the method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is applicable to project component shear wall. The method's feasibility rules are component specific and they contain application context (e.g., whether the rule is applicable to superstructure walls or substructure walls). The rule repository of method Wooden Gang Formwork contains all these rules with their individual contexts and their associations (explained as follows). • Rule Tagging: Rule Tagging is used to identify each production rule. The CLIPS inference engine recognizes each production rule by its "Rule Name". For identification and selection of 92 every production rule we have used a unique' rule name and its association. The association is a data element associated with each production rule indicating the PCBS components to which it is applicable. Every association has two PCBS component "codes". As shown in the object model diagram (figure 6.4), a rule has only one association, but one association of PCBS components can have a number of associated rules. -has Method -Name -Path -Code -Description Type -Attributes -has -belongs to 0.1 1-.* Resource Name Path Code Description -Type -Attributes -belongs to Rule Repository Name Path i-Code [-Description •Type . ^ -has Association PCBS Component Name 1 PCBS Component Name 2 •belongs to Figure 6.4. U M L static structure diagram of Method, Rule repository, Rule, and Associations. During the tree formation of a method statement the user selects methods from the standard library and copies them over to the method statement. Depending upon the application context of the method, the user can give the association with two physical components. For example, when Wooden Gang Formwork is selected for the superstructure wall component, the association becomes "<Superstructure> + <Wall>". Association PCBS component code 1 PCBS component code 2 Superstructure Wall These associations are used to retrieve only the relevant production rules from the rule repository to include in the method statement rule file as shown in figure 6.5. This operation is performed by an external subroutine code i.e., "Softcode3" written in C++. 1 The unique rule name is generated by the system automatically while defining rules and their associations. 3 Agenda, sometimes considered as the part of Inference engine itself (Giarratano and Riley, 1998). 93 Thus, Rule Tagging and Associations can be used to customize a method statement rule file according to the scope and level of the method statement. 6.3.5 Exposing M&RBS Facts, Instances, and Relationships to CLIPS The method statement is copied onto the project side with all of its constituent operations, methods, and resources. As shown in figure 6.1, the method statement rule file is also copied along with the method statement. Similar to the Project PCBS, the method statement is a hierarchical listing of components, which need to be exposed in standard M & R B S template format for rule-based reasoning. In this step of the reasoning schema, the method statement gets exposed as M & R B S facts and instances with the help of "Softcode 4", and the hierarchical relationships between M & R B S components are exposed by "Softcode 5" (figure 6.6). 6.3.6 Reasoning After loading the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies in terms of facts and instances, the Method statement rule file and relationship rule file are also loaded into the CLIPS environment. The rule-based reasoning is then performed based on the facts, instances and rules. As shown in figure 6.7, the rule-based reasoning system has four main components the working memory, the agenda3, the knowledge base, and the inference engine. Working memory The working memory is defined as a global database of facts used by rules (Giarratano and Riley, 1998). These facts include the PCBS and M & R B S facts, instances, and relationship facts. Since they contain instances of the classes, they are more appropriately called "pattern entities" (Giarratano and Riley, 1998). These entities are globally available within the CLIPS environment for pattern matching of production rules performed by the CLIPS inference engine. These pattern entities are created, modified, duplicated, retrieved, and removed from the working memory depending upon the execution of the production rules. Knowledge Base The knowledge base of the rule based reasoning system contains the domain knowledge available in the form of production rules. Two types of rule files i.e., Method statement rule file and Component Relationship rule file, are included in the CLIPS knowledge base by loading their ".clp" file form. 94 has •hhs Method Statement f-Name Path hCode Description Type Attributes Rule file l-Name 1-Path • Code Addition of Method rules to Method Statement Rule File h a d Method Name •Path •Code Description •Type •Attributes •belongs to -has Rule Repository v -Name -Path -Code -Description Rule •Name Description Code -has 1..* -has 1 -belongs to Association •PCBS Component Name 1 •PCBS Component Name 2 Selection of Method rules according to "Associations" from the Rule Repository of Method Softcode 3 Figure 6.5. Schematic diagram of Method Statement Rule File formation. The inference performed by the CLIPS inference engine is a forward chaining based pattern-matching mechanism, which uses the Rete algorithm (Giarratano and Riley, 1998). The algorithm matches available pattern entities in the working memory against the patterns in the rules to determine which rule conditions are satisfied. The rules for which all conditions are satisfied are said to be "activated" or instantiated. Whenever multiple rules get activated and become available to fire they are put on the "agenda". Pattern matching continues until all activated rules in the agenda are fired and no new facts are created. Agenda "The agenda is the list of all rules which have their conditions satisfied (and have not yet been executed)" (Giarratano and Riley, 1998). Whenever multiple rules are activated, the inference engine stores them in the temporary memory and orders them 95 Tree Structure Conslructlnn of typical floor of a High-rise E-ROOT Method Statement rtflh-nse Superstructure C !^ )-Formed Operation Formwork for Columns S- WGang Method Wo«ienGar$ Formwork '.',-..... j~WGC Resource Wooden Gangform for Column * '-FCrew' •• Resource FormwoffcCrew RebarCot Operation Construction of typical floor of aHoA-rii ^Prefab Method Rebar fabrication -, L. RCrew. Resource .Rebar Crew-.;.' . - ; " r . BiConcCol .'Operation Conctsti (Sadng fwColumrtr. >"': •I Q-Oeudc Method (jorraete FHadng wMiiCraneSiSucket HsrFormWaS Operation Formwork for WaSs f fJ3: WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork ',;[• fvww ' Resoifce'Wooden Gang'W«!form for Wal ['.*••".' <- FCrew -Resource. Fammkam " B-RebarWeJ Operation Rebar placing for Wals j SHPPreFab Method PartialRebarPrefabrtcatlon i t '. !r .RCrew.- Resource. Rebar Crew -i-ConcWaS Operation Concrete placement for W * -^FormCore Operation Formwork for Core ( B-AJurrpRn Method A M * ^ Wal« Jumpform i .'• |~JumpFm Resource Aluminum Water iirefam {'- ' UfCew- Re»ur<»;fiorrawoikCrew: RebarCore Operation Rebar placement for Core | frppreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefaorfcatlon j, '--RCrew. Resource Rebar Crew ^.ConcCore. Operation Coroete ptaceroer* for Core. PorraStab Operation Forowork for Stab f^ -FITruss Method Flying Truss Formwork for Slab -FTruss Resource Flying Truss Formwork for S -Crane Resource Wener Hammerhead Tower < •FCrew . Resource Formwork Crew. {^ -RebarStab Operation Rebar Placement for Slab ^ConcSeb Operation Concrete'ptaceroer* for Slab n. SoftCode4 "Method Statement" M&RBS Facts and Instances (deffacts torb3]J:braporie,nts82 • ' • , Qkbs component (nanie ERB.S3) ••; (code,'"FCrew"!. • (path "ROOT.FohnCol.tfGano;.FCrew") • (descr ipt ion "Hboden. Gang ForraworJc Crew") ... (coaponent_type"'"Resource"! ' ..':r (a t . t r ibu tes '^u^e ' r 'of. Crew^EeBbers'*) • • '(parameter .or condi t ion "Parameter")., ( a t t r i b u t e t y p e "Quantitat ive" ) (attr ibute values [atva!13]) L _ i ! "Method Statement" M&RBS component Hierarchy (ccjld^coBpoaent (cbildjMnponeni (cbildj:oBi»!iem' (cfaild_cOBpbaent (chndjMapOBeBt {cbiidjroapoMiit |ctUd_coipotient (cMMjsaipoaeiit; lebi ld_coctpoaeat (child c^oapoaeac (cbUdjHsponeat (chiioVcospoaeat (ctiiMUMBpoaeat "BRBKri) •1ESS3')) "HHrM"!| "BK8S5")) , I ' " B a S T | | "ERBS8")) "BBSS") I ,' "5EBSI1") 'JRB313") Relationships between "Method Statement" M&RBS components Figure 6.6. Exporting M & R B S facts, instances, and relationships to CLIPS. according to priority for execution. The priority of the rule for execution, or in other words the placement of the rule on the agenda is determined by the salience5 of the rule. The placement of a rule on the agenda is based on the factors as follows: 1. Newly activated rules are placed above all rules of lower salience and below all rules of higher salience. 2. Among rules of equal salience, the current conflict resolution strategy is used to determine the placement among the other rules of equal salience. 3. If a rule is activated (along with several other rules) by the same assertion or retraction of a fact, and steps 1 & 2 are unable to Salience is the rule property that allows the user to assign a priority to a rule. Salience value should be an expression that evaluates to an integer in the range o f - 1 0 0 0 0 to + 1 0 0 0 0 (CLIPS, 2 0 0 2 ) . 96 specify an ordering, then the rule is arbitrarily (not randomly) ordered in relation to other rules with which it was activated. - (Giarratano and Riley, 1998). Seven conflict resolution strategies are available in CLIPS: depth, breadth, simplify, complexity, lex, mea, and random (CLIPS, 2002). We have used the default strategy i.e., the depth strategy in which the newly activated rules are placed above all rules of the same salience. Knowledge Base Component Relation Rule File Method Statement Figure 6.7. Reasoning with CLIPS inference engine. 6.3.7 Result Analysis The inference engine executes the rules according to the agenda. Since every rule represents a different feasibility knowledge aspect, they produce specific feasibility results. For example, the rule for site-space availability will yield a result as to whether the site space available on the project is sufficient for the method or not. Depending upon the number of a certain type of fact (e.g. a PCBS component with code "Column"), the rule wil l get evaluated for each fact instances and provide component 97 specific feasibility analysis. For example, if the super structure of the project facility has a number of slab-bays at each floor location, the feasibility rule wil l be evaluated for every component (all slab-bays) for each of its locations. The corresponding results are output as follows: Result: "The Method 'Wooden Gang Formwork' is not suitable for 'Shear Wall' because of lower production rate; the estimated resource usage is 15.17 crewhrs at location 2 ". Result: "The Method 'Aluminum Waler Jumpform' is suitable for 'High Rise Tower Core' for the time allowance given considering rate of production at locations ("GFL" "3" "4" "5" "f5" "y "§" "p" "10")'' Considerable effort is involved in encoding meaningful diagnostics / results for the user. For this thesis, we are interested in reporting the failed conditions and passed conditions for decision-making purposes. However, the user can write rules that produce various forms of output i.e., construction method related risk information, quality management issues, work method issues, etc. The output can be printed to separate text files. Based on the results of the feasibility analysis, the user can choose to keep the method statement, modify it, or discard it. Chapter 7. Implementation 7.1 Overview Described in this chapter is proof of concept of the method statement reasoning schema discussed in previous chapters. A high-rise tower in downtown Vancouver is used as the case example. PCBS and M & R B S structures were created for the superstructure system of this project. Method statement reasoning was performed using production rules based on the feasibility factor knowledge listed in Appendix-A. 7.2 Project PCBS Description The residential high-rise project, described in section 3.2.2, is used to demonstrate proof of concept (the actual construction strategy used was observed first hand). The high-rise project is divided into two subprojects i.e., a high-rise residential tower and low-rise townhouses. Only the high-rise tower subproject is used for method statement feasibility reasoning. We revisit the PCBS description of the subproject in this chapter in order to illustrate the description of the individual PCBS components such as columns, walls, core, and slab using a standard set of attributes. 7.2.1 Columns The high-rise tower columns are described as the child node of the vertical elements subsystem. The element "Columns" is described as the collection of subelements, i.e., column types as shown in the figure 7.1. Each column type is described with attributes such as Length, Width, Height, Number of Elements, etc. Every attribute is assigned values corresponding to the locations on which they are present e.g., floor GFL, floor 2, etc. The attributes such as Formwork Quantity, Rebar Quantity, and Concrete Quantity are used to describe PCBS components at element level, as shown in figure 7.2. The quantitative values of these attributes are the summation of quantities for all the components under the element level. For example for element "Columns", at a particular location, the value of attribute Formwork Quantity is the cumulative formwork quantity of all column types and corresponding number of columns listed under them for that location. In high-rise construction, contractors think in terms of a construction cycle for a typical floor. A shorter and more economical construction cycle is always desired. For a given construction cycle, the user can input the allowable timeframe for a specific operation at particular floor location. For example, the user can input Timeframe for Formwork for column formwork as 8 hours at locations "2", "3", etc. The timeframe and available formwork quantity at that location wil l be used for calculating the required rate of production which can be evaluated against the available rate of production from the column forming method (selected as a part of the method statement) considering crew 99 S&sX -I. I File •J'Projecc'Ar'iew '';pemplatej#ie.w Standards ?PCB5, WindoVJ (C) 1=1 r=) Ja * ^ & r3> •3ftn £ tk & _y5 _. Jj.Bi'1*1 Path: C3IA.ToWei.SupSfR.VertEle.Cols. / : r , Atribute Length ||, Value Type:'Quantitative>:' Project Residential High-Rise Project ;'Unit: ft ,' • - GIA | SiteLoc Location Set Site Location .:' 6-Tower.: Subproject High Rise Tower & TLoc Location Set High Rise Tower Locations i -Eh SupSTR1 System High rise Tower Super Structure El•• VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components [ ] £h Cols Element Columns j Colml Subelement Column A j Colm2 Subelement Column B ;-Colm3 Subelement Column C i l l i l i i l •Hill1 P S I t t i p D[IS;urh values for alliocatronsj l-,', iLocaferi Range*1*-?! Colm4 bubelement Column D Location Range"' I'-Value1' iGflT "-2011 |- Colm5 - Subelement Column E .. ,.s ]•••• Colm6 Subelement Column F }•• Colm7 . Subelement Column G j-Colm8 Subelement Column H 4- Golm9~ "•; • Subelement Column K • ColmlO Subelement Column L El-Core Element High Rise Tower Cons' El ShWall Element Shear Walls .'Add • De'ele Ed:t OK Cancel (b) Project i Attributes | Values | Standard PCBS Records | Activities | ~Pay items | Qualty Mgt ] Eharige^ jlIP^ oject^ ^ f||!§^  ' Path GIA Tower SupSTR VertEle Cois. mm • Code |Colm4 , Type- | • .' • Attribute Description IColumn D " 3 Description ! Inherited Attribute ; Class B7Q7L I Unit Time Frame for Concreting YES Duration Properties " Q - hr Time Frame for Rebar YES Duration Properties Q . hr 'Time Frame for Formwork YES Duration Properties Q hr •••••" -m Shape YES . Physical Properties • L ... Slump Range YES'-.A':'"'''""'"''" :"'" " Concrete Properties Q ' in Max. Size of Aggregate YES Concrete Properties . Q in Rate of Pour YES"*'" ' Concrete Properties Q • ft mssm YES; , Dimension Properties • Q - ft Width- • YES ' v Dimension Properties ". ft Height YES ' Dimension Properties Q .-• ft Number of Elements . YES :AK GeneralProperties - v ::Q •-••>;-;•• No. Max. Height YES . Physical Properties , "Q ft - — W Inherit attribute definition from above level Add j , Delete Edit, jfiil OK Cancel Figure 7.1. (a) Subelement "Column D " described as a column type; (b) Subelement "Column D " with attribute "Length"; (c) The value of attribute "Length" at the location range. 100 sizes (also selected as a part of the method statement). Similarly, Timeframe for Rebar and Timeframe for Concreting can also be specified. For reasoning about concrete placement methods, we described the "Column" element with attributes showing maximum horizontal distance from the parking space used for concrete delivery and the maximum vertical distance for concrete placement from the ground level. The concrete properties such as Slump Range and Max. Size of Aggregate are also important attributes for feasibility reasoning for concrete placement methods. Every vertical component has assigned the attribute Rate of Pour1. 7.2.2 Walls Similar to columns, walls are also modeled as an element, which is a child node of vertical element subsystem. The element "Shear Walls" is a collection of shear-walls modeled as subelements at a lower level. The point to note is that the shear walls occurring at location G F L (i.e. ground floor) are modeled as a subelement "Shear Wall A " representing non-typical walls at that location. Similarly, subelement "Shear Wall B " represents non-typical walls occurring at location 2 n d floor. Remaining shear walls present at multiple floor locations are categorized according to their lengths and associated subcomponents. The number of possible reuses for formwork is an important feasibility condition of the formwork method. The foregoing categorization of shear walls helps in the identification of the possible reuses for each type of shear wall. Every subelement of "Shear wall" type is described with basic attributes such as Length, Width, and Height. The wall subcomponents such as corners, offsets, pilasters, and openings are further modeled as the subsubelements under the corresponding subelement wall. The attributes such as formwork quantity, rebar quantity, and concrete quantity are assigned to the element "Shear Wall" , as shown in figure 7.3. Similar to column element, the shear wall element can also be described with timeframe attributes and concrete properties. The shear walls designed with shear zones are modeled as the element "Shear Wal l " with the content "Shear Zone". 1 The Rate of Pour is an important property associated with formwork that is used for calculation of the maximum allowable pour pressure. Generally, the formwork contractor asks the designer to design formwork with a required rate of pour. The column gang formworks are generally designed for full head, i.e., 8 ft /hr rate of pour. 2 In earthquake prone zones such as Vancouver, the vertical shear reinforcement in core and shear walls needs to be staggered at alternate floors. These concentrated regions of rebar, generally two storeys high, are called "zones" (Fradley) (Bitchel). 101 TOKIPC()N . p;!?o"-[>ROjiS53^| File, ;Projectj.View ,'Jerrglate, View Standards PCBS ' Window (<0 B: GIA Project Residential High-Rise Project SiteLoc Location Set Site Location *' • Tower Subproject High Rise Tower H TLoc V' Location Set: High Rise Tower Locations: -- El SupSTR System High rise Tower Super Structure • • VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components .-, ; a- Cols,|4;.' Element Columns '' Path:GIAJoweirSupSTRVertEle Attribute Formwoik Ouantity Value Type Quantilahv • • Unit ft2 Cilk] Rij Aggregate values from lower levej W _ Sum value-! lor all locations Location Range'*'?',' Location Range'' |t'Vatue=" * rsFp 1891.07 2 1264.54 3 796.50 4 459.00 <l Total: 15450 73 J i i j J • Add Delete LJ" •> OK Cancel i -Colml Subelement Column A I— Colm2 "' Subelement Column B }"Colm3 Subelement Column C i Colm4 Subelement Column D j- Colm5 Subelement Column E ! Colm6 Subelement ,.Column;F; j , : !•- Colm7 Subelement Column G j • Colm8 Subelement Column H {:•• Colm9 Subelement Column K ColmlO Subelement Column L ,• j a Core Element High Rise Tower Core j El-ShWall Element Shear Wals EJHoriEle Subsystem Horizontal Components • SubSTR System High Rise Tower Sub Structure || (b) _jri x] Attributes• I Values'|jSt7ndard"PCBS Records [Activities |. Pay items | Qually Mgt | Changes | Proiect Records | Memo | Path: GIA-Tower.SupSTR.VertEle. Code: Cols Description: IColumns l l i §B l l l lL Type. j. Attribute -mm Description 1.1 Class B/Q/L | Unit Rebar Quantity Concrete Quantity Surface Area Time Frame for Concreting Time Frame for Rebar Timeframe for Formwork Shape Slump Range •:,, Max. Size of Aggregate Rate of Pour Length _Wjrith - -Y.. Area Properties Q Y.: Material Quantities. <- Q Y.. Area Properties Q Y.. Area Properties Q Y.- Duration Properties Q Y.. Duration Properties Q Yr: Duration Properties - Q Y.. Physical Properties L Y.. Concrete Properties Q Y.. Concrete Properties Q Y:. Concrete Properties Q N: Dimension Properties Q N Dimension Pmnftrties„ ... .H.. ft2 Tn yd3 ft2 hr hr hr in in ft ft Jt w\ ' W~ Inherit attribute definition from above level • Add Delete Edit „ OK Cancel Figure 7.2. (a) Element "Column" described as the collection of column types; (b) Element "Column" with attribute "Formwork Quantity"; (c) The value of attribute "Formwork Quantity" at various locations. 102 ?REPCON S.20-PRO303\lI S1 JIM Park GIAJotwi.SupSTR.VertEle. Atribute. Concrete Quantiy Value Tj>p«: Quantiative . Unit ydi ' , >" y, * Iv,," («) -Zl.Xl lr?itet_' fProject_Vlew TernD'a:e„View Stands Window Help i values "from kwa Jev^ as I* u^n '^ue-i *or oil hr titans Location Range I J I v a B S ^ B W i .4 ,GFL| 18736 2 52 62 • -. - t«i 1 4826 ,'.M 4 5205 «l ' -— I • i Hi •<Totar 114211 P Deiele •K j Cancel a-GIA Project'-Residential High-Rise Project ..: - i - SiteLoc.' Location Set Site Location • • ; • •Tower Subproject High Rise Tower El - TLoc Location Set High Rise Tower Locations S- SupSTR System High rise Tower Super Structure. 6 VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components •. ri.- Cols ' Element Columns Core Element High Rise Tower Core ni ShWal Element Shear Wals } —Szone Content Shear zones of rebar ; -SWall Subelement Shear.Wali A-non typical wals at GFL. SWaD2- Subelement ShearWal B: hoh.typical wals at 2nd Floor. SWa03 Subelement Shear Wal M :f'; ' , -. S SWa!l4 Subelement Shear Wal Ai Conrl SubSubelement Corner F-SWaE Subelement Shear Wal Bl !•• SWaS6 Subelement Shear Wal CI' ; SWaB7 Subelement Shear Wal Dl $-SWal8 Subelement Shear Wal El "••Corirl SubSubelement Corner B-SWaD9 Subelement Shear Wal Fl Conrl SubSubelement Corner - . . SWal 10 Subelement Shear Wal G1 SWal 1 Subelement Shear Wal HI h. SWall2 Subelement Shear Wal Ml Ofstl SubSubelement Offset --••Conrl SubSubelement Corner S SWaH13 Subelement Shear Wal S_l, _-_ _^ ; Attributes Values | Standard PCBS Records | Activities ] Pay items j Quality Mgt| Changes) Proiect Records |rMemo_ Path GIA Tower SupSTR VertEle Code: ShWall Description (Shear Walh Type l.i. At ribute Values —I •Description 1. III:. M M Class i B/QA. ' Unit • ' A Formwork Quantity Y. Y.. Y.. N. N. Area Properties Q ft2 IP Rebar Quantity Y. Y. Y.. N. N. Material Quantities Q Tn I^I^|1^B|^|^I[I!I)| Y. Y.. Y.. N. N. Area Properties ,Q - yd3 . Surface Area Y. N. N: N. N. Area Properties .Q ft2 Time Frame for Concreting Y. N. Y.. N. "N. Duration Properties Q hr Time Frame for Rebar Y. N. Y.. N.\ N. Duration Properties Q hr Time Frame for Formwork Y. ,N. Y.. N. •N." Duration Properties Q hr Shape , "Y. 1 N. N. "N:': N. Physical Properties L Slump Range Y. N.- Y.. N. *N. Concrete Properties Q in Max. Size of Aggregate ••' Y. N. Y.. N. N: Concrete Properties Q in Rate of Pour Y. N: Y.. N. N. Concrete Properties Q. - . ft . Length N N. N. N. N. Dimension Properties Q ft Hpinhr N N M N N Himpnsinn Prnnprtips n • IJ^ -I i* |i ;" ..- : Copy Planned to Actual |l[ Enter-Planned Values jjf' Enter Actiial.Values • K J - Cancel Figure 7.3. (a) Element "Shear Wal l " described as the collection of shear wall types; (b) Element "Shear Wal l " with attribute "Concrete Quantity"; (c) The value of attribute "Concrete Quantity" at various locations. 103 7.2.3 Core The core of the high-rise tower is described under the "Vertical Elements" subsystem and listed as child node of the subsystem i.e. element. For the purpose of more detailed representation the core is further subdivided into its constituent walls, which are described as the subelements3 (as shown in figure 7.4). The "Core Wal l " types are categorized according to their physical parameters (length and height) and subcomponents (openings, corners, and offsets). Attributes such as Length, Width, and Height are assigned to every component of type "Core Wall" . The openings of the core walls are modeled as the subsubelement under corresponding subelement core walls. The high-rise core walls are designed with shear zones and are modeled as the element "Core" with content "Shear Zone". The element "Core" is further described with attributes such as Formwork Quantity, Rebar Quantity, and Concrete Quantity along with timeframe attributes and concrete properties. It is to be noted that the core walls are modeled separately from the shear walls because it facilitates feasibility reasoning of formwork methods which are more commonly used for core forming such as slip forming and self-climbing formwork. 7.2.4 Slab The element "Slab" is described as the child node of the subsystem "Horizontal Elements" with attributes such as Formwork Quantity, Rebar Quantity, and Concrete Quantity. The element slab is further subdivided into subelements called slab-bay according to the orientation of the vertical supports and possible orientation of the flytables as shown in the figure 7.5 and 7.6. Each slab-bay is described with the help of the standard attributes Length, Width, Thickness, Shape, etc. For purposes of feasibility reasoning about various slab forming systems, the properties of the slab-bay are more appropriately expressed with the help of boolean attributes indicating whether or not the SlabBay Supporting Sides are Parallel and the SlabBay Support is Uniform, as shown in the figure 7.7. A slab-bay may contain beams, slabbands, and a spandrel beam, which can be modeled as the subsubelements for the subelement "Slab-bays". Similar to other elements, slabs are also described with formwork, rebar, and concrete quantities with corresponding timeframe attributes. Concrete properties are also listed. 3 The structural element core can have various forms and layouts according to its constituents such as elevator shafts, lobby, staircase, toilets, and mechanical and electrical service rooms [Yeang 2000]. Therefore for the purpose of more detailed representation purpose we described core with its constituent walls as subelements. 104 ITPrrrN h.Pif I'I'Oin i II si File Project_View tyrn^a'-.tuj-'.^if. Standards PCB5 Window H %0 £ ,T l ,4 (a) h-lahx|! B-.GIA Project Residential High-Rise Project i-SiteLoc Location Set Site Location El Tower Subproject High Rise Tower •QE-.TLoo Location Set High Rise Tower Locations S SupSTR System High rise Tower Super Structure • VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components El Cols Element Columns B Core Element High Rise Tower Core ;;Szone Content Shear zones of rebar ; Cornrl Subsubelement Corner ••Opengl Subsubelement Openging i •••••! B CWall2 Subelement Core Wall B 4 {•• Cornrl Subsubelement Corner } \Cornr2 Subsubelement Corner '—Opengl Subsubelement Opening CWall3 Subelement Core Wall C i CWalK Subelement Core Wall D CWall5 Subelement Core Wall E i B-CWall6 Subelement Core Wall F ; Opengl Subsubelement Opening •'•  Openg2 Subsubelement Opening El ShWall Element Shear Walls > (C) I'l BX I'l.nin.idrAttrit>iiiv Value """"" ——" i i s l • Path GIA Tower SupSTR VertEle- Lrrr j Attribute length > * *: I Value Type Quantitative (.Unit ft;, .,» • ,' », y. \ Aggregatevalues from lower level 3 nj-Suiriivalues foria Wm 1~ Cllj<] 111 ! lfi|lljll H U l I l • B i l l location Range •; lvalue,-' IGFL" 721 17.5 3 -4 5 -22 23 -23 18 17.5 12.75 "Add ~~ I rje'ete I " Ed." I OK Cancel (b) I'llljell l>( KS '.'! Attributes | Values | StandardPLBS Hecoids |' A=ti«ilies j Pay items | Quality Mgt | Changes | Pro ect Records | Memo) Path:tGIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.' Code:,|CWall~ T ype j . Attribute Description: 11Core Wall A ~3 Description ! Inhen " Cla-.s |l &7Q/L"' 1 Unit' : • "•"' jf < 1 rx| Concrete Quantity. . YES • Area Properties Q yd3 Surface Area- YES Area Properties' Q ft2 Time Frame for Concreting , YES • Duration Properties Q • hr .. . . • Time Frame for Rebar YES Duration Properties ' Q •- . hr ... • Time Frame for Formwork YES Duration Properties Q hr Shape • ' . , YES Physical Properties -.' L • Slump Range- ' ". YES -\ Concrete Properties • '"' Q . in Max. Size of Aggregate' YES Concrete Properties Q in i! '. Rate of Pour • • • YES - Concrete Properties Q • ft . ' .... YES Dimension Properties Q ft Height YES Dimension Properties Q ft Width YES Dimension Properties Q ft Number of Elements YES General Properties Q No. ::.„, - ™ ^ ^ ,L . _ _ —. Inherit attribute definition from above level Add D'elelL- Edit-OK., Cancel' Figure 7.4. (a) Subelement "Core Wall A " described as a core wall type; (b) Subelement "Core Wall A " with attribute "Length"; (c) The value of attribute "Length" at various locations. 105 Figure 7.5. Plan showing slab-bays with vertical supporting sides parallel to each other. 106 Slab-bays in residential high-rise Figure 7.6. Plan showing slab-bays in case-study project. 7.2.5 Site Location and Tower Locations The project site location is described as a location component for the high-rise tower. Available site storage area, rebar storage area, parking area available, and open space area are described by their length and width (see figure 7.8). These attributes are used in feasibility reasoning regarding the method statement defined for this type of project. 107 (c) Pms r>l,inni-(l Attribute Valur (a) Path: GIA. Tower.SupSTR.HoriEIe.Slab. Attribute: SlabBay Support is Uniform i Value Type. Boolean • Location Rar.ae Value i IGFL -GFL False i Add |n Delete |. Edit | OK _ J L J Cancel ($fi File Piojcct_Vicw • i,. 1 1 i l l f-Path: GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab. Code jSIBayl Description fsiabBayA-Type: Attribute Dubelerr.ent Description Class Standards PCBS Wmdd B-GIA ' • Project Residential High-Rise Project i -SiteLoc1 Location Set Site Location - • ~: H-Tower Subproject High Rise Tower - , ; E3- TLoc. Location Set High Rise TowerLocations: -H SupSTR ; System High rise Tower Super Structure " B- VertEle Subsystem Vertical Components !+! Cols Element Columns . • • ... ' •'••>'-El-Core Element High Rise Tower Core H ShWall Element Shear Walls , ••' B-HortEle" Subsystem Horizontal Components -B~ Slab Element High Rise Floor Slab 1 -SiBandl SubSubelement Slabband 1 S-SIBay2 Subelement SlabBay B ) - A- SiBandl SubSubelement Slabband-B SIBayS Subelement SlabBay E . SiBandl SubSubelement Slabband E SIBay4 "Subelement SlabBay D "• '. L-SiBandl SubSubelement Slabband B • SIBayS Subelement SlabBay F ' ;-SiBandl SubSubelement Slabband 3 SIBay6 Subelement SlabBay G ; 1 i.; -SiBandl ' SubSubelement Slabband IB-SIBay 7 Subelement SlabBay H ffl- SIBay8 Subelement SlabBay I Fi SIBay9 Subelement SlabBay A1 BSIBaylO "Subelement SlabBay Bl B-SIBayll Subelement SlabBay CI Sl-SIBayl2 Subelement SlabBay Df" . B SIBayl3 Subelement. SlabBay El ' , SIBay 14 - Subelement SlabBay Fl ; !•- SIBaylS Subelement SlabBay Gl j SIBay 16 Subelement SlabBay HI-• SIBay 17 "'Subelement SlabBay Jl " j-SIBay 18 Subelement SlabBay Kl SIBay 19 Subelement SlabBay LI .. SubSTR System High Rise Tower Sub Structure Lownse • Subproject Town Houses B/QA. .. UniiT Slump Range Max. Size of Aggregate Number of Elements Length Width '"; : Thickness Horizontal Distance Vertical Distance Storey Height Min. Width SlabBay Support is Uniform SlabBay Supporting Sides are Parallel Y.. Concrete Properties Q in Y.. Concrete Properties Q in Y.. General Properties Q No. Y.. Dimension Properties Q ft -Y.. Dimension.Properties Q ft Y.. Dimension Properties ' Q ft Y.. Material Quantities Q ft Y ;. Material Quantities Q ft Y.. Floor Loc Properties Q ft Y.. Dimension Properties Q ft Y.. Tech. Specifications B Y.:: T ech. S pecifications B |7 Inherit attribute dehnit'on from above level Add " Delete" " Edit Figure 7.7. (a) Element "Slab" described as a collection of slab-bay subelements; (b) Subelement "SlabBay A " with attribute "SlabBay Support is Uniform"; (c) The value of attribute "SlabBay Support is Uniform" at location. 108 ™ R E ^ C O N ' 5 S 5 J B R O J 0 3 . \ T E S T -•[groject P C B S ] Rtef ProjectfView Tjemplbte< V.eyj, Standards PCBS;,, Vtfndd !=> 'rl * Jr fj ^ B - GIA Project Residential High-Rise Project llucation Set? Site Location B-Tower Subproject High Rise Tower •- -B-TLoc Location Set High Rise Tower Locations B-SupSTR System High rise Tower Super Structure ., B-VertEle"1 Subsystem Vertical Components' 6-Cols. Element Columns i-Colml. Subelement Column A ; : Colm2 Subelement Column B j-Colm3 Subelement Column C i Colnrrt Subelement Column D i ~Colm5 , Subelement Column E -i-Colm6 .Subelement ColumnF j — Colm7 Subelement Column G Colm8 Subelement Column H. j : Colm9 • Subelement Column K ' ColmlO Subelement Column L E3- Core Element High Rise Tower Core :•• Szone , Content Shear zones.of rebar j-CWalll Subelement Core Wal A B CWa!l2 Subelement Core Wall B : CWal3 Subelement Core Wal C CWal4 Subelement Core Wal D -CWalE Subelement Core Wal E [ Path: SIA. '••"'< ' }"• • Attribute: Site Storage Area ii Value Type: Quantitative I Unit: ft2 - . • • O Sum"values for all locations Location Range i j x j i • i i i Location Range • Value 4214 Add Delete Edit OK Cancel (P) • ln|x| Attributes j Values j Standard PCBS Records ] Activities] Payitems |' Duality Mgt | Changes) Pro|ect Records j^ Memo ' Code, j SiteLoc Type | Attribute Description ISiie Location "EI-Description _i-.u Class B/O/l | Unit Length N. Site Loc Properties Q. ft Width N. Site Loc Properties Q ft ' N. Site Loc Properties Q ft2 Open Space Length N. Site Loc Properties Q ft Parking Space Length N. Site Loc Properties ,.;--„ .Q ft Parking Space Width ' >.- N. Site Loc Properties " ft : -Rebar Storage Space Length N. Site Loc Properties Q ft Rebar Storage Space Width N. Site Loc Properties Q . f t h Rebar Fabrication Space Length ; N. Site Loc Properties ; Q .' ft *' Rebar Fabrication Space Width " . N. Site Loc Properties Q ft Horizontal Formwork Storage Space Length N. Site Loc Properties Q ft •M Horizontal Formwork Storage Space Width • , N. Site Loc Properties Q. ft : IP Vertical Fnrmwnrk Stnrflnfi SnarR 1 pnnth . N Sitp 1 nr. Prnnprtips_ „„ _n _ft 1^ "1 V Inherit attribute definition from above level MS OK Cancel Figure 7.8. (a) Site location of the project described with component named "Site Location"; (b) Component "Site Location" with attribute "Site Storage Area"; (c) The value of attribute "Site Storage Area" at location. 109 7.3 Project M & R B S The standard M & R B S method statement developed for high-rise superstructure construction is shown in figure 7.9. raREPm"H 5.2ft PRmnx.KST |ffge''Project Jfiew''1^ ^ Window Help wm Template Description1 i Conv Sewer Replacement-Main MV, Construction of typical floor, of a> Concrete Placement with Pumps i> j Method Statement for, Constructii Trenchless (Microtunnelling) Sew Trenchless(Microtunneling) Sewe[ f Pump House Construction for Se>| PumpHouse ' ;"' " !•' Construction of Typical Floor witll Construction of typical floor of a Gang Form ' • High Rise Concrete pumping tech; '\ Slickline pumping Supporting tecF1 i Placing Flatwork- Slab placing tel \ Excavation Support Techniques Wall Forming - Gang Form Syster Excavation or Trenching Techniq J J Shield Tunnelling MT Methods (St 'I MT involving Soil Jetting at the f«i Dewatering Techniques Column Forming Techniques I Column and Beam Forming Techn Rebar Methods | Wall Forming Techniques " ' j Slab Forming Techniques I Slab Forming Techniques; , | Slab Forming - Flyforms : j Rebar Placement Methods ]| Slab & Wall Forming Techniques I Core Forming Techniques j Concrete Pumping - Line Pump Concrete'Pumping - Boom Pump j Concrete Placing Techniques Separate Placer Boom Mounting | Formwork Material Resource j Concrete Pumps ConcreteSlickline pumping acces | Concrete Placing Buckets | Placing Boom Mast j Rebar Methods :| Wall Forming Techniques ij Slab Forming Techniques! ;! Slab Forming Techniques; Slab Forming - Flyforms ", . ii Rebar Placement Methods Slab & Wall Forming Techniques ilJ Core Forming Techniques vV Concrete Pumping"- Line Pump f l | Concrete Pumping - Boom Pump 'M Concrete Placing Techniques '',J, Separate Placer Boom Mounting" ;;«| Formwork Material Resource • tAj^  Concrete Pumps ( Concrete Slickline pumping acces^M Concrete Placing Buckets <iw,. Placing Boom Mast ^ Concrete Belt Conveyors OM, General-use equipment used inc! Constructionof typicall^orof.a High-rise Tree Structure mm 3 El- RebarCol Operation Construction of typical floor of a High-rise B-FormCol Operation Formwork for Columns i 3 WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork „••"'•• • j v-WGC , Resource Wooden Gangform for Column FCrew , Resource Formwork Crew . B-RebarCol Operation Rebar placing for Columns B-PreFab Method Rebar Prefabrication RCrew Resource Rebar Crew ' " ' - ': ••• ConcCol Operation Concrete placing for Columns • ' B-CrBuck , Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket , Crane Resource Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhead Tower Crane Bucket ., Resource Concrete Bucket - Upright . •CCrew Resource Crane and Bucket concrete placement crew B-FormWall Operation Formwork for Walls E WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork • • WGW Resource Wooden Gang Wallform for Wall FCrew Resource Formwork Crew B-RebarWall Operation Rebar placing for Walls I B- PPreFab,, Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication RCrew Resource Rebar Crew '•" .-""•'-' B - ConcWall Operation Concrete placement for Wails 3 CrBuck Method Concrete, Placing with Crane & Bucket ,s : r-;^. i—Crane . Resource Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhead Tower Crane Bucket Resource Concrete Bucket-Upright,. , •CCrew Resource Crane and Bucket concrete placement crew B-FormCore . Operation Formwork for Core B-AJumpFm Method Aluminum Waler Jumpform i•- JumpFm Resource Aluminum Waler Jumpform ' _ . FCrew Resource Formwork Crow • • ••• RebarCore Operation Rebar placement for Core i B PPreFab Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication J :— RCrew Resource Rebar Crew - "'. • . * B - ConcCore Operation Concrete placement for Core E CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket . -Crane Resource -Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhead Tower Crane Bucket -Resource: Concrete Bucket - Upright" -- CCrew Resource Crane and Bucket concrete placement crew 3 FormSlab Operation Formwork for Slab _ B-FITruss- Method Flying Truss Formwork for Slab • •; FTruss Resource Flying Truss Formwork for Slab !• Crane* ""Resource PienerHammerhead Tower Crane . ""* -<*' ••FCrew Resource Formwork Crew 3 RebarSlab Operation Rebar Placement for Slab , .„;; > ,,Hf •- ;. ; S A , ' , B-ReAsm .' Method Rebar Assembly ; -RCrew Resource Rebar Crew ' -• B-ConcSlab• "Operation Concrete placement for Slab •••CrBuck. Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket Crane* - "Resource Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhead Tower Crane ;-•• Bucket . Resource Concrete Bucket - Upright CCrew , "Resource Crane and Bucketcoiicrete placement crew: i: •> Figure 7.9. Method Statement hierarchy with operations, methods, and resources. 110 Three basic operations were considered for each of the physical components (i.e., column, wall, core, and slab), these being formwork, rebar placement, and concrete placement. Each operation has its own methods and resources described under it along with their feasibility parameters and conditions as shown in figure 7.10. These parameters 1 rswrm. 'M(«) Py REPCON 5l2uItfROJ@MS.Ti -y^i | File#JPro)ecttyiewv, tandarcfc Standard M&RBS..' tWindowlrHefy (C) Template Description • •*• Conv Sewer R'Ff Construction ci Concrete Place • Method Stater, Trenchless (Mi j Trenchless(Micr: Pump House C;| PumpHouse Construction cr Construction c' Gang Form jl' High Rise Contf't Slickline p:impii Placing Flatwo .-Excavation Su I Wall Forming -if Excavation or j; Shield Tunnelliii MT involving Dewatering Tej Column Forminf T o d . m n > v l R . ' k J Tree Structure Construction ol typical floor of a High-rise Template Construction of tjipical llocr of a High iiie V •*• .^lll Patk ROOT FormWa'l mm Raramete&, iter [Sate of Production E3- RebarCol Operation Construction of typical floor of a High-rise B-FormCol Operation Formwork for Columns B WGang Method Wooden Gang Formwork . WGC Resource Wooden Gangform for Column: FCrew Resource FormworkCrew Id-RebarCol Operation Rebar placing for, Cokjmns B- PreFab Method Rebar Prefabrication RCrew. Resource Rebar Crew B- ConcCol Operation Concrete placing for Columns r B- CrBuck Method Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucke • Crane Resource Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhe • --Bucket Resource Concrete Bucket - Upright • • CCrew Resource Crane and Bucket concrete pla B • FormWall Operation Formwork for Walls • J. --WGW Resource Wooden Gang Wallform for Wall • FCrew Resource FormworkCrew 1+1- RehflrWall_ Onftratim^RRharjilannn fnr..„Wan<; Pass: {Production Data • 1 1 UratAboreyation: jsft/'manhr j Value Type Quantitative R I-Co" jiStdValue! lStdValue2 ' EQ - . - 35 -'Add Delete, , Edit UK Cancel, Figure 7.10. (a) Method Statement hierarchy with method "Wooden Gang Formwork" (highlighted); (b) Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" with parameter "Rate of Production"; (c) The value of parameter "Rate of Production". I l l and conditions are used in the formation of production rules, which are listed in the rule repositories associated with methods. The formation of the method statement rule file works in tandem with the formation of method statement as described in section 6.5. Initially, we manually formed the method statement rule file, which is listed in Appendix-B. Eventually, this process will be automated. The method statement is then exposed in terms of "facts" in the CLIPS environment, and these facts are then interpreted by the relationship rules to the establish hierarchical relationships between the "facts" of the elements in CLIPS environment. The facts are listed in the Appendix-B. 7.4 Reasoning The reasoning process starts with loading the PCBS template definition, M & R B S template definition, and relationship rules in the CLIPS environment, as shown in figure 7-11. The lists of PCBS and M & R B S relationship facts are also loaded and get defined in the CLIPS environment. ' CLIPS 6.2 - [Dialog Window] File Edit Buffer Execution Browse Window Help CLIPS (V6.20 03/31/02) CLIPS> (batch "C:/Documents and S e t t i n g s / A l l Users /Desktop/CLIPS/Chapter8 - ru les- ] T R U E : ' ; ; " ' " ' . ' . : CLIPS> ( load "C: \ \Repcon520 \ \pcbsmrbs .c lp" ) Defining" ; def class':*' PCBS_VALUE ' O--' . Def in ing def c l a s s : PCBS_DATA , . • ' • : , ; ," De f in ing deftemplate: pcbs_component De f in ing def c l a s s : HRBS_VALUE ' ' = ..-.'v.'.-' Def in ing deftemplate: mrbs_cortiponent De f in ing deftemplate: parent ,.,.„.A-. - \v;.- -Def in ing deftemplate: ancestor De f in ing d e f r u l e : ancestor 1 +j ' ^ • A ? ; ' i' ' > Def in ing d e f r u l e : ancestor2. -j'+j TRUE ;. - ' w :••' - . ••" '', '. \ ••: '•>: '. :: CLIPS> ( load " C : Y,\ Documents and Se t t ingsW A i l U s e r s \ \ D e s k t o p \ \ C L I P S \ \ C h a p t e r 8 - r u Def in ing def f a c t s : re lat ionships_HRBS ' .;• ' '-rf . . • .' TRUE " i ' '- • CLIPS> ( load "C:\ \Documents and S e t t i n g s \ \ A l l UsersVVDesktopVVCLIPSWChapiter8-ria De f in ing d e f f a c t s : r e l a t i o n s h i p s _ p c b s . _'.."' TRUE'.-.-'.'!'.' -5- •••>• •" \'~[':.-~ ? : . - '• \ ' •• '• Figure 7.11. PCBS template, M & R B S template, and relationship rules and facts get defined in CLIPS environment. The method statement rule file is also loaded, as shown in figure 7-12. The rules get defined in CLIPS environment. The lists of PCBS and M & R B S facts and instances are included in CLIPS environment by loading separate facts file and instances file, as shown in figure 7-13. 112 -. ri iPt; K ? - [nifllnrj Wmrinw ] Q Ne^ 'Edi Buffer' Execution Browse Window Help';?; '". • i£|D •!•• 419BBHIHHHI1 Defining deffacts TRUE . • : CLIPS> (load " C : \ Def ining ,defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining, defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule: . Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : Defining defrule : relationships_pcbs • : ' ' • . \Documents and S e t t i n g s \ \ A l l - Users\\Desktop\\CLIPS\\Chapter8-rules-HSl\\Hethod_ste^ f i l e _ o p e n l +j f ile_open2 +3 . - r file_open3 +j Shreel +3 • •_ • - • Shree2 +j Shree3 +j • . . ' ' • site_space_check_uooden_gangform_column +3+3+3+3+3+j+3+3 column_reuse_check_i wooden^ gangf orm_column +3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3 ' , -coluTOnj_rate_of£concrete__pour_Mooden_gangform_column =3=3=3= j =j+j+j+j* I coiuran_Tie_spacihg?check_iiiooderi_gangform_colmn =j=3=j=3=3 =j+j+j ' col umn_T ime_f r ame_f6 r_f o rrmro r k_troo de n_gangf o rro_co luron=j=j=3+3+j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j site_space_check_rebar_pref abrication_column_onsite +3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3 site_space_check_storage_f or_rebar_pref abr ica t ion_colui»n +,3+3+3+3,+3+3+3+3+3 ,; . tinie_f rame_|_f or_rebar_pref abricatibn_colunin" "=3=3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3 site_space_check^crane_bucket_niathod_coluran =3=3+3+3+3+3+3+3 rate_of_placement_crane_bucket_mathod_column =j+j+j+j+j+j+j+i+j ,; raax^sizeiof£aggregate_check^crane^bucket_m * ; " site_space^check_rvbbden_^gangf orm_wall' =j=j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j • " . reuse_check_uooden_gangform_wall =3=3=3=3=3=3=3+3+3+3+3 rate_of_concrete_pour_check_uooden_gangf orra_trall = 3=3 =j=3=3-3-3+3+3+3 t ie_spacing_checfc„uooden_gangf orm_uall. = j=j=j=j=j=j=j=j+j+j :. t ime_f ran>e_f or_«ooden_gangf orm_ual 1 ~3"3=3"3" 3+3+3+3 + j +j +j +3 +3 +3 site_space_check_rebar_partprefab_uall = 3=3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3 r , -site_space_check_rebar_onsite_fabrication__zones_Tirall = j+j+j+j+j+j+3+j+j+j -time_frame_for_partial_rebar_prefabrication_of_vall =j=j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j site_space^check£crane_bucket_mathod_Tiral l =3=3+3+3+3+3+3+3 * '• rate_of_placement^_crane_bucket_mathod_Hall = j=j+j+j+j+j+3+j+j roax_size_of_aggregate_check_crane_bucket_mathod_Tjall = j=j=3= j ° j = j+j+j site_space_check_aluminum_jump_forra_coreHsll. = j + j + j + j + j + j + j + j Eeuse_check_aluminum_juKip£_foriri_corewali =j=j+j+j+j+j+j+j+j+3+J rate_of_concrete_pour_check_aluminuro_jump_f6rro_c6rexjall s =j = j5=j=j=j !=j = j+j+j+j'. tie_spacing_check_aluminum_juitip_f orni_coreuall = 3=3=3=3=3=3=3=3+3+3 t ime_f r ame^f o r_f o rmuor k_a 1 um i num_ 3 ump_f o rro_c orewall=3=j=j = j=j+j+j+j+3+j+j+j+j+j site_space_check_rebar_partprefah_coreuali " j + j - j + j + j + j + j + j + j + j % s i t e space check rebar onsite fabr ica t ion zones coreuall =3=3=3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3 Figure 7.12. Method Statement rules get defined in CLIPS environment. Defining defrule : sice_space^ cteck^ ccam b^ucketjnathod_slab/;"j^ +j+J.+j+j+j+j.. Defining defrule : rate_of_pIacement_crane_bucket_rriathod_slab=j=j=j=j=j+j+j+j+j Defining defrule : max_size_of_aggregate_check_crane_bucket_mathod_slab =j=3=3=3=3=3+3+3 Defining defrule : f i l e _ c l o s e l +j' defining defrule : £ i i e _ c l o s e 2 +j '• ' , • . ' , . ' Defining defrule : f*ile_c'lose3 +j TRUE CLIP'S> (reset)':; . ;•;;, \. (load-facts "C:\\Repcor.520\\Proj03\\TESTda.fct") v : .' TRUE . V"" ''*..•' ' • ' " CLIP5> (load-instances "C:\YRepcon520\\Proj03\\TESTda.ist") 9582, • , ; .„/ , :.• •• • ./ •' . ; CLIP5> (run) . ' • : • , " r Figure 7.13. PCBS and M & R B S facts (TESTda.fct) and instances (TESTda.ist) get loaded in CLIPS environment. The reasoning process starts after the facts and rules are Reset and Run as shown in figure 7.13. During reasoning a number of rules are placed on the agenda and fired as shown in figure 7.14. The facts generated and the instances used during the "run" are also 113 shown in the figure. For our example project for ease of checking, we added some additional rules to print the output for the method statement feasibility reasoning report to separate report files for formwork methods, rebar placement methods, and concrete placement methods. The output is included in Appendix-H. 7.4.1 Report Discussion The report generated from the feasibility reasoning about the method statement High-rise superstructure construction indicates various failed and passed conditions related to feasibility of construction methods involved. For example, the report provides results describing the reasoning about reuses of the flying truss formwork system as follows i.e., "The Method 'Flying Truss Formwork'for PCBS component 'SlabBay El' is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18 ". The report also indicates that by using the assigned formwork crew and the rate of production of the method (Flying Truss Formwork) the estimated duration of the slab formwork activity for the given formwork quantity at a particular location is more than the allowable time frame at that location. i.e., "The Method 'Flying Truss Formwork' is not suitable for 'High Rise Floor Slab' because the production rate does not meet the time constraint imposed; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 5 ". The user can either increase the crew size or can change the slab formwork method to a method with a higher production rate, such as tunnel formwork or column mounted flytable formwork. However, these methods also have their own feasibility conditions, which need to be satisfied before including them in the finalized method statement. The production rules in the method statement rule file also indicate the availability of sufficient site storage space or assembly space for formwork, parking space for concrete placement equipment, and rebar storage and fabrication space. i.e., "The Method 'Rebar Prefabrication' does not have sufficient 'Onsite Fabrication Space Length 'for 'Columns'. " Similarly, the feasibility report indicates that the method of rebar placement is not suitable because it does not meet the imposed time constraint for the rebar placement operation at the location for the given rebar quantity, rebar crew, and rate of production of the rebar placement method. i.e., "The Method Partial Rebar Prefabrication Method is not suitable for High Rise Tower Core because of lower rate of production, the estimated resource usage is 8.82 crewhrs at location GFL ". 114 cu aj cu aj cu a a a a a o o.;o o B B B fi B 0 0 0 * 0 " u u u u I I I I M U U U U o ••o-.'.o o P 4J. 4 J , -4J co co co to in cu cu cu cu cu u u u a a a •Cd Cd . Cd O U cd cd • U U U U l-l U M l-l U U U U l-l l-l u u u u 1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 i U o L> 0 a u H 1 J 4 - ) P 4-) 4-J P a u t> u » J ••cn coco co co coco co co co co coco co co to, co co ><i cu cu cu cu • cu cu cu cu ru. cu cu cu cu ru, ar at cu cu u u u rj a o u o u u o u 0 0 u o u o a a a a a a a a a a a a-a .a .a'i-a a «• :;i cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd. cd cd cd ' cd • cd cd cd cd cd u u u w • 0 0 0 0000 CO CO " CO CO cu" cu cu cu o o u u a--a - a a cd cd cd cd u u u u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO . CO cu cu cu cu Ll U U O a a a a cd cd cd .cd U l-l u » 0 0 0 ?%j u u u f CO CO CO >f%! cu cu cu i u u u G & & cd cd cd m m i' 1 I ro <r m «3 r> C D , cn o M O *r, m us r>; co cn o . . . , . 1 0 tn 1 0 LT) LD men I D ID 10 m m I D ID I D io ID r-fitiji U J l f l W ^ l O l f l l O U ) ID UD UD IO kO I D kO •H CM CO * r> r> r> r>, I D I D I S I S I I I I <H <H <H <H m ID r> co [*-' r- r> r> tD ID ID ID 1 1 1 1 W H W W ffl O H O CO CO J.— ID ID kD if__ H w t i t e CD O l-l CD & r-1 U <u c-3 T3 £3 CD 0 0 cd a o CD T3 e CD o </J a o <D Xj 0 0 S3 •c Q <u u s OX) 115 Firing of the relevant production rules indicates that the concrete placement method Crane and Bucket is suitable for slab concrete placement. For the case study project, because of the relatively small size of the floor plate, the crane and bucket method was feasible. However, for a commercial high-rise building, which involves a larger concrete placement quantity, the user can modify the method statement by replacing the Crane and Bucket method with a Separate placing boom. Such a changed method statement was reasoned for the present case example. The feasibility reasoning report indicates that the method Separate placing boom for concrete placement of column, wall, core, and slab is infeasible because of an insufficient quantity of concrete. The concrete quantity for the whole construction cycle is assumed to be equal to the concrete quantity of one high-rise floor according to conservative assumption that construction cycle duration is of one work week i.e., 5-days. i.e., "The Method 'Slab Concrete placement - Separate Placing Boom' is infeasible due to concrete quantity for whole construction cycle is less than required 235 yd3 at location ("2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" ll ; nil ii^nn ""Jin H")~)H " Even though, the diagnostic report indicates that the separate placing boom method is infeasible, the contractor may choose to keep the same method statement to achieve a faster construction cycle and reduce the over all project duration, thereby reducing overall cost of the project and thus making the method feasible (Harvell, 1991) (CC, 1988). Similarly, by analyzing the feasibility reasoning report, the contractor may choose to use a Hand - set slab forming method for the ground floor location and the non-typical locations "2"and "3" floors, where the Flying truss formwork method is infeasible because of less repetition and presence of slab-bands. The methods used in the method statement for the feasibility reasoning were actually observed on the case study project. However, as indicated in the feasibility reasoning reports, a few methods were found to be infeasible because of the following reasons: • In the case of the Flying truss formwork method for slab formwork, the contractor had used a larger crew size of 12 crew members, unlike 7 crew members used in the method statement employed in feasibility reasoning. Moreover, the time frame we enforced for slab formwork is 8 hours, which is less than the 12 hour workday used by the contractor for the same task on the actual project. • Similarly, larger crew sizes and time frames were used for rebar placement on the actual project than that of the method statement used for feasibility reasoning. 116 • According to the available knowledge the gang forming methods need at least 30 reuses on a project to be economically feasible. Therefore in the feasibility report file (included in Appendix-H) these methods, in the case study example, are regarded infeasible due to insufficient available reuses. In actual practice formwork, as subcontractors use their formworks on multiple projects makes the gang forming method economically feasible. In summary, the feasibility reasoning report provides feedback that can be used in preconstruction and pre-bidding brainstorming sessions to determine a feasible method statement. The decision support available from the system depends upon the comprehensiveness of the PCBS description, M & R B S description, and quality of the production rules. Much work remains to formulate a comprehensive set of feasibility screening rules, and reasoning diagnostics. What has been shown, however, is that construction method knowledge can be made explicit, captured in the form of rules, and applied to assist construction personnel assess feasibility of all or parts of a comprehensive method statement. 117 Chapter 8. Conclusion 8.1 Introduction The primary objective of the thesis was to develop a knowledge management tool for method selection and feasibility reasoning. The emphasis of the work was on giving decision support to the user for method selection and encoding knowledge in a reusable format for use on future projects. The methodology followed during the thesis work included a literature review on knowledge management and method selection practices, a review of method selection and feasibility factors, semi-structured interviews with construction personnel, characterization of technical feasibility knowledge, selection of an appropriate knowledge representation scheme, formation of feasibility production rules, selection of reasoning schema, and implementation of proof of concept. 8.2 Contributions The thesis contributes to the state-of-the-art by: • Examining high-rise construction methods in order to document technical feasibility factors knowledge for formwork, rebar, and concrete placement activities; • Modeling the feasibility factors knowledge in a reusable format for automated feasibility reasoning during method selection; and, • Giving the user decision support by using rule-based feasibility reasoning with the help of hierarchical descriptions of a project's physical description and a method statement comprised of methods and resources to be used for a predefined construction context. Such a decision support can be provided in any system that uses a hierarchical representation of the physical components of a project (i.e. a product model), and a rich representation of construction methods statement. The current work was developed within the context of the R E P C O N research system because it supported both representations and thus allowed the author to focus on knowledge capture and feasibility reasoning, without having to develop from scratch other supporting infrastructure. Areas of improvement described in the current system are noted in section 8.3. The system allows the user to model his information, experience and knowledge pertaining to components to be constructed and relevant construction methods in the form of attributes or feasibility parameters and conditions. These factors are then modeled in the production rules for automated feasibility reasoning and decision support. 118 8.3 Findings Important findings from the research are: • Method selection and method's feasibility factor knowledge exists in various forms, including the academic and trade industry literature. Of special use are the construction case studies available in trade journals such as Concrete International, Concrete, Concrete Construction, and Engineering News Record. They are rich sources of method selection and feasibility knowledge. Further, seasoned industry personnel hold a wealth of practical knowledge, which can be collected using interview processes. • By describing project Physical Component Breakdown Structure (PCBS) and Method and Resource Breakdown Structure (M&RBS) hierarchies with the help of standard attribute classes and standard coding schema, the user can repetitively use the feasibility rule file from project to project. • In this proof of concept of knowledge management tool, production rules have been used. However, it is not always possible to express method selection and feasibility knowledge in declarative1 form to determine feasibility of a construction method. In such cases production rules giving descriptive text message outputs can be used. These rules are especially useful to highlight theoretical knowledge or information associated with the methods, cost implications, quality management plans and work method related issues, etc. • A few modifications such as the addition of seventh level (i.e. subsubelement) to the PCBS hierarchy and the formation of standard attribute classes have been made in order to assist in modeling and reasoning. It was observed that hierarchies are useful for comprehensive information, experience, and knowledge modeling. The required level of details while modeling, however, depends on the desired decision support from the system. • Extensive knowledge related to High-Rise concrete construction was captured and elicited in the form of method selection and feasibility factors knowledge. A part of this knowledge is used for the proof of concept in the form oi method statement rule file. • The encoding of the method selection and feasibility factors knowledge in the production rule format needs a good working knowledge of CLIPS expert system. It was observed that procedural functions such as If-Then-Else and While loop are helpful in modeling the procedural part of the feasibility checks. 1 "Declarative knowledge is the surface level information that expert can verbalize." In other words, declarative knowledge is the general heuristics available at a conscious level (McGraw and Harbinson-Briggs, 1989). 119 • Method statement reasoning schema was developed and tested on a full-scale concrete high-rise residential construction. Workability of the system was demonstrated by the comprehensive feasibility reasoning report obtained. 8.4 Recommendations for future work The present research work did not consider the cost aspect of method selection. Given its importance in decision-making, adding a "cost" facet to the current technical feasibility reasoning would be desirable. The scope of the present work included formation of feasibility reasoning rules, which requires a good understanding of CLIPS expert system language syntax. It is possible to form standard functions to perform routine procedures such as checking dimensional uniformity over a location range, which wil l significantly reduce the rule forming and checking work. These functions can be listed in a separate repository, which can be made globally available within the expert system environment. The user can simply pass on arguments to these functions to have a desired feasibility check done from within the rule. This feature wil l allow rule writing with nominal working knowledge of CLIPS syntax. The domain of the present research was high-rise construction. The purpose was to explore formwork, rebar placement, concrete placement methods for highly repetitive construction cycles. The high-rise construction methods domain is a reasonably well-researched one, however, greater impact could be achieved by examining more complex projects such as bridges, tunnels, transit guideways, underground utilities, etc., where more variability in site conditions is encountered. Presently we have implemented the exporting of the PCBS and M & R B S hierarchies to the CLIPS environment with the help of softcodes as explained in Chapter 5, which is sufficient for demonstrating proof of concept. The present redundancy of rule evaluation, such as the testing of site space requirements for the crane and bucket method for each of its uses, can be avoided by implementation of the rule-tagging feature explained in Chapter 5. Further, the fine-tuning of feasibility reasoning rules and creation of rule repositories is desirable. Last but not the least, an intuitive interface for rule writing as well as an interface for feasibility reasoning and report generation is essential for use of the reasoning schema in practice. 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aalami, F. B. (1998). "Using Construction Method Models to Generate 4D Production Models." Ph.D. Thesis, CIFE, Stanford University. AbouRizk, S., Mather, K . (1998). " A CAD-Based Simulation Tool for Earthmoving Construction Method Selection." Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 39-52. A C P A (2001). Operator Safety Guide: Separate Placing Booms, American Concrete Pumping Association, 1 October 2002 <www.concretepumpers.com/ safetySGseparate.asp>. Adeli, H . (1988). Expert Systems in Construction and Structural Engineering, Chapman & Hall, ISBN- 0412289105. Al-Ghassani, A . M . , Kamara, J. M . , Anumba, C. J., and Carrillo, P. M . (2002). " A Tool for Developing Knowledge Management Strategies." Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Royal Institute of Technology, 7, 1 October 2002 <http://www.itcon.Org/2002/5/paper.pdf>. Al-Hammad, I. (1991). " A Knowledge-Based Framework for Construction Method Selection." Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Alkass, S., Aronian, A . (1990). "Computer Aided Equipment Selection for Concrete Placing." Concrete International, A C I , 12 (12), 38-45. Alkass, S., Aronian, A . , and Moselhi, O. (1990). "Computer-Aided Equipment Selection for Transporting and Placing Concrete." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 119 (3), 445-465. Alkass, S., Harris, F. (1988). "Expert System for Earthmoving Equipment selection in Road Construction " Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 114 (3), 426-440. Allouche, E. (2001). "Decision-Support Model for Selection of a Trenchless Construction Method." Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta. B A M T E C (No Date). "Concrete Slab Reinforcement System." Product Brochure, One Steel Reinforcing, 1 October 2002 <http://www.onesteel.com/reinforcing/products/ BAMTEC_Concret_Slab_System.pdf>. Bennett, D. F. H . , MacDonald, L . A . M . (1992). Economic Assembly of Reinforcement, British Cement Association, ISBN- 0721014135. 121 BPG (2001). "Prefabricated Punching Shear Reinforcement for Reinforcing Concrete Flat Slabs." Best Practice Guides for In-Situ Concrete Frame Buildings, British Cement Association, ISBN- 0721015786. Camellerie, J. F. (1978). "Vertical Slipforming as a Construction Tool." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, May Issue. CC (1988). "Frequent Flyer Program for Concrete Booms." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, June Issue. CC (1983). "Slabs Without Vertical Shoring." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, June Issue. CC (1982). "Climbing Tower Crane and Extended-Life Superplasticizer Solve Difficult Placement Problems." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, September Issue. Chalabi, A . F., Christopher Y . (1989). "Crane, an Expert system for Optimal Tower Selection and Placement." Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 290-297. Chevallier, N . J. (1998). "Automated Draft Plan and Schedule Generation Using Templates, Physical Breakdown Structures and Expert Systems." M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. CLIPS (2002). CLIPS Reference Manual Version 6.20, G H G Internate Services, 1 June 2002 <http://www.ghg.net/clips/CLIPS.html>. Crepas, R. A . (1985). Pumping Concrete: Techniques and Applications, Concrete Construction Publications. Davenport, T. H . , Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN- 0875846556. EFCO (2001). "Half the time." Form Marks, Economy Forms Ltd., Spring Issue. EFCO (2000a). " E - Z Deck: Decking and Shoring System." Product Brochure, Economy Forms Ltd. EFCO (2000b). "Hand-E-Form: Handset Forming System." Product Brochure, Economy Forms Ltd. EFCO (2000c). "Four Pours, Fifteen Days." Form Marks, Economy Forms Ltd., Fall Issue. EFCO (1999). "Casino Expansion." Form Marks, Economy Forms Ltd., Fall Issue. 122 EFCO (1994). "Plate Girder Form System." Forming Systems Catalog, Economy Forms Ltd. Egbu, C , Botterill, K . (2001). "Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital: Benefits for Project Based Industries." CORBA 2001 Conference, RICS Foundation, U K . Elhag, T. M . S., Deason, P. M . , Morris, P. W. G., and Patel, M . B. (2000). "Development of a Knowledge System for a Construction Contractor." Project Management Institute Annual Conference, PMI: New Zealand. Fischer, M . A . (1993). "Automating Constructability Reasoning with a Geometrical and Topological Project Model." Computing Systems in Engineering, Pergamon Press, 4 (2-3), 179-192. Fischer, M . A . (1991). " Using Construction Knowledge During Preliminary Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures." Ph.D. Thesis, CEFE, Stanford University. Fisher, T. S. (1997). "Spotting Boom Pump Safety." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, November Issue. Froese, T., Rankin, J. (1998). "Construction Methods in Total Project Systems" Proceedings of the International Computing Congress, Boston, A S C E , 383-394. Fulton, W. R. (1989). "Self-Lifting Forms." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, November Issue. Galagan, P. A . (1997). "Smart Companies." Training & Development, Madison Wise, 51 (12), 20-24. Ganeshan, R., Stumpf, A . , Chin, S., Liu, L. , and Harrison, B. (1996). "Integrating Object-Oriented C A D and Rule-Based Technologies for Construction Planning." USACERL Technical Report 96/82, US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. 1 October 2002 <www.cecer.army.mil/TechReports/ sturuby/ stu_ruby.post.pdf>. Giarratano, J., Riley, G. (1998). Expert Systems: Principles and Programming, PWS Publishing Company, 3, ISBN- 0534950531. G i l , N . , Tommelein, I. D. , Kirkendall, R. L. , and Ballard, G. (2001). "Leveraging Speciality-Contractor Knowledge in Design-Build Organizations." Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Blackwell Science Ltd., 8 (5/6), 355- 367. GoodChild, C , Moss, R. (1999). "Reinforcing Cardington." Concrete, Eng. Concrete Society, 33(1), 11-14. 123 Gray, C. (1986). "Intelligent Construction Time and Cost Analysis." Construction Management and Economics, 4 (2), 135-150. Hanna, A . S. (1998). Concrete Formwork Systems, Marcel Dekker Inc., ISBN-0824700724. Hanna, A . S. (1994). " S E L E C T C R A N E : A n Expert System for Optimum Crane Selection." Proceedings of the 1st Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 1,958-963. Hanna, A . S., Sanvido, V . E. (1991). "Interactive Horizontal Formwork Selection System." Concrete International, A C I , 13(8), 50-56. Hanna, A . S., Sanvido, V . E. (1990). "Interactive Vertical Formwork Selection System." Concrete International, A C I , 12 (4), 26-32. Hanna, A . S., Willenbrock, J. H . , and Sanvido, V . E. (1992). "Knowledge Acquisition and Development for Formwork Selection System." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 118 (1), 179-198. Harvell, D. B. (1991). "Consider A l l Costs When Choosing a Concrete Placing Method." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, August Issue. Hastak, M . (1998). "Advanced Automation or Conventional Construction Process ?" Automation in Constriction, Elsevier Science, 7(4), 299-314. Hendrickson, C , Zozaya-Gorostiza, C , Rehak, D. (1989). Knowledge Based Process Planning for Construction and Manufacturing, Academic Press, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., ISBN 0127819002. Hendrickson, C , Zozaya-Gorostiza, C , Rehak, D. , Baracco-Miller, E., and Lim, P. (1987). "Expert System For Construction Planning." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 1(4), 253-269. Hurd, M . K. (1995). Formwork for Concrete, ACI , SP-4, 6 th Edition. Hurd, M . K. (1991). "Bracing for Wall Formwork." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, July Issue. Industry Canada (2002). "Sector Competitive Frameworks Series: Growth Prospects for the Industry." Industry Canada, 1 October 2002 <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/l/ ce01318e.html>. Jagbeck, A . , (1994). " M D A Planner: Interactive Planning Tool Using Product Models and Construction Methods." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 8(4), 536-554. 124 Kamara, J. M . , Anumba, C. J., and Carrillo, P. M . (2001). "Knowledge Management in a Multi-Project Environment in Construction." Proceedings of the First International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference: Creative Systems in Structural and Construction Engineering, Rotterdam: B alkema, 321-326. Kamarthi, S. V. , Sanvido, V . E., and Kumara S. R. T. (1992). " N E U R O F O R M - Neural Network System for Vertical Formwork Selection." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 6 (2), 178-199. Kartam, N . , Al-Tabtabai, H . (1995). "Interactive Knowledge-Intensive System for Constructability Improvement." Proceedings of the Fourth Construction Congress, A S C E , 322-330. K L I C O N (1999). The Role of Information Technology in Knowledge Management within the Construction Industry, Project Report, C R M P , University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, U K . Koel, L. (1997). Concrete Formwork, American Technical Publishers, ISBN-0826907067. Koo, T. K. , Tiong, R. L . K . , Wong, T. F., and Tay, M . C. (1992). "Design and Development of an Intelligent System for Formwork Selection." Structures and Buildings, Proceedings of the Institute of Civi l Engineers, 95 (1), 73-91. Kululanga, G. K. , McCaffer, R. (2001). "Measuring Knowledge Management for Construction Organizations." Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Blackwell Science Ltd., 8 (5/6), 346-354. Laufer, A . , Shapira, A . , Cohenca-Zall, D. , and Hall , G. (1993). "Prebid and Preconstruction Planning Process." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 119 (3), 426-444. Lewis, A . (1998). "In the Pipeline." Concrete, Eng. Concrete Society, 32(8), 12-14. McGraw, K. , Harbinson-Briggs, K . (1989). Knowledge Acquisition: Principles and Guidelines, Prentice Hall Publication, ISBN- 0135164362. Morey, D. , Maybury, M . , Thuraisingham, B. (2000). Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works, The MIT Press, ISBN- 0-262-133384-9. Navinchandra, D. , Sriram, D. , Logcher, R. D. (1988). "GHOST: Project Network Generator." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 2 (3), 239-253. Patent (2001). "Mod-U-Form: Field Forming Manual." Product Brochure, Patent Construction Systems. 125 Patent (2000). "Interform: Aluminum Flying Form System." Product Brochure, Patent Construction Systems. Patent (1999). "Studform: The Interform Joist and Waler Wall Forming System." Product Brochure, Patent Construction Systems. Peurifoy, R. L. , Oberlender, G. D. (1995). Formwork for Concrete Structures, McGraw-H i l l , 3, ISBN-0070498385. Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D., and Olomolaiye, P. O. (1999). "Construction Resource / Method Factors Influencing Productivity for High-Rise Concrete Construction." Construction Management and Economics, E & F N SPON, 17 (5), 577-587. Putzmeister (2001a). "Telebelt Putzmeister" Product Brochures, Putzmeister America, 1 October 2002 <http://www.putzmeister.com/products/telebelt/>. Putzmeister (2001b). "Truck-Mounted Concrete Boom Pumps" Product Brochures, Putzmeister America, 1 October 2002 <http://ww^v.putzmeister.com/products/ truckmount/>. Putzmeister (2001c). "Trailer-Mounted Pumps" Product Brochures, Putzmeister America, 1 October 2002 <http://www.putzmeister.com/products/trailermount/ index.cfm>. Putzmeister (200Id). "Separate Placing Booms" Product Brochures, Putzmeister America, 1 October 2002 <http://www.putzmeister.corn/products/placingboorn/>. Quinton, M . E. (1991). "Room Tunnel Forming: A Day in the L i fe . . . " Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, November Issue. Rankin, J. H . (2000). "Computer-Assisted Construction Planning." Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Reed, P. R. (2000). Developing Applications with Visual Basic and UML, Addison Wesley, ISBN-0-201-61579-7. Rezgui, Y . , Cooper, G. , and Brandon, P. (1998). "Information Management in a Collaborative Multiactor Environment: The COMMIT Approach." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 12 (3), 136-144. Rivard, H . (2002). "Information Technology in A E C Industry - A n Overview." Canadian Civil Engineer, CSCE, 19 (2), 10-11. 126 Robinson, H . S., Carrillo, P. M . , Anumba, C. J., and Al-Ghassani, A . M . (2001). "Perceptions and Barriers in Implementing Knowledge Management Strategies in Large Construction Organizations." CORBA 2001 Conference, RICS Foundation, U K . Rowley, J. (1999). "What is Knowledge Management ?" Library Management, Emerald, 20 (8), 416-420. Russell, A . D., Chevallier, N . J. (1998). "Representing Project's physical view in support of project management functions." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, N R C , 25 (4), 705-717. Russell, A . D. , Sharma, A . , and Udaipurwala, A . (1997). "Construction Method Selection and Cycle Design." Proceedings of the Fifth Construction Congress: Managing Engineering Construction in Expanding Global Markets, A S C E , 486-493. Russell, A . D. , Udaipurwala, A . , Alldritt, M . , El-Guindy, K. (1999). "Computer System for the Selection of Trenchless and Conventional Methods for Underground Utilities." Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Elsevier Science Ltd., 14 (2), 1-12. Sawhney, A . , Mund, A . (2002). "Adaptive Probabilistic Neural Network-based Crane Type Selection System." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 128 (3), 265-273. Scheuer, J., Budenski, J. (1993). "Tunnel Forms Speed Construction of Multistorey Residence Hal l . " Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, April Issue. Sharma, A . (1997). "Computer Assisted Methods Selection for High-Rise Construction." M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Skibniewski, M . J., Chao, L . (1992). "Evaluation of Advanced Construction Technology with A H P Method." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 118 (3), 265-273. Slagle, M . (1997). "Choosing a Concrete Conveyor." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, May Issue. Syal, M . G . (1992). "Construction Process Knowledge Model to Assist Method Selection in Project Planning." Ph.D. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University. Syal, M . G . , Parfitt, M . K. , and Willenbrock, J. H . (1993). "Design Information Hierarchy for Construction Method Selection Process." Computing in Civil and Building Engineering: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (V- ICCCBE), Anaheim, California, 1, 742-749. Theophilus, J. (1995). "Rationalised Reinforcement Design." Concrete, Eng. Concrete Society, 29(2), 17-18. 127 Tiwana, A . (2000). The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge Management System, Prentice Hall PTR, ISBN- 0130128538. TOPEC (2000). "Topee Soffit Formwork." Product Brochure: Instructions for Erection and Reuse, Thyssen Hunnebeck Schalung Company, 1 October 2002 <http://www.huennebeck-schalung.de/english/leistungen/fs_index.php37ziel =fs_schalungen_e.html>. TOPEC (2001). "The 2 Component Slab Formwork System." Product Brochure, Safway Formwork Systems L L C , 1 October 2002 <http://www.safway.com/index.html>. Turban, E. (1990). Decision Support and Expert Systems: Management Support Systems, Macmillian Publication, 2, ISBN- 0024216631. Turban, E., Aronson, J. E. (1998). Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems, Prentice-Hall, 5, ISBN- 0-13-740937-0. Udaipurwala, A . (1997). "Hierarchical Representation of Information for Construction Methods Selection." M.A. Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Udaipurwala, A . , Russell, A . (2002). "Computer-Assisted Construction Methods Knowledge Management and Selection." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, N R C , 29 (3), 499-516. Ugwu, O. O., Tah, J. H . M . (1998). "Towards Optimising Construction-Method Selection Strategies Using Genetic Algorithms." Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Pergamon Press, 11 (4), 567-577. U M L (2001). " O M G Unified Modeling Language Specification." UML 1.4 Specification, Object Management Group, 1 October 2002 <http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/01-09-67.pdf>. Wallace, M . (1985). "Cast Walls and Slab at the Same Time with Tunnel Forms." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, February Issue. Wallace, M . (1997). "Raising the Rio." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, May Issue. Wallace, M . A . (1998). "Finding the Best Spot for a Boom Pump." Concrete Construction, The Aberdeen Group, January Issue. Waugh, L. M . , (1989). "Knowledge-based Construction Scheduling." Proceedings of Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 84-91. 128 W C B (no date). "Introduction to Personal Fall Protection Equipment: Safety Belt, Harnesses, Lanyards and lifelines." Health and Safety Topics, Workers Compensation Board of BC, 12 October 2002 < http://wwAv.worksafebc.com/publications/ health_and_safety_infonnatiori/by_topic/assets/pdf/fall_protection.pdf>. Winstanley, G., Chacon, M . A . , and Levitt, R. E. (1993). "Model-Based Planning: Scaled-Up Construction Application." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , 7(2), 199-217. Yeang, K . (2000). Service Cores, Wiley-Academy, ISBN- 047197904 X . Zizette, B. (1998). " A Purely Object-Oriented Approach for Rule-Based Paradigms." Expert Systems With Applications, Elsevier Science Ltd., 14 (4), 483- 492. 129 APPENDICES 130 APPENDIX - A Method Selection and Feasibility Factors Knowledge Appendix A Method Selection and Feasibility Factors Knowledge A l . List of Construction Personnel Interviewed / Referred (Bichel) Bichel, Pat; General Manager, Plains Reinforcing Ltd., Surrey, BC. (Rebar placement) (DeBruin) De Bruin, Henk; Manager, Outinord Universal Inc., Miami, FL, U S A . (Tunnel formwork) www.outinord.com (Fallowfield) Fallowfield, Rob; P.Eng., Outinord Universal Inc., Miami, FL, U S A . (Tunnel formwork) www.outinord.com (Fradley) Fradley, Wayne; Operations Manager, Raymond Rebar Inc., Surrey, B C . (Rebarplacement) www.rrebar.com (Gastaldo) Gastaldo, Paolo; Estimator/Manager, Gastaldo Concrete Ltd., Delta, BC. (Concreteplacement) www.gastaldoconcrete.com (Heinz) Heinz, Dale; District Manager, EFCO Corp., Calgary, Alberta. (Formwork) www.efco-usa.com (Holm) Holm, Garret; Formwork Designer, EFCO Corp., Kent, W A , USA. (Formwork) www.efco-usa.com (Kennedy) Kennedy, Rod; Manager, Grand Sierra Constructions Ltd., Surrey, BC. (Method selection) (McFEE) McFEE, Ron; Manager, Preconstruction services, Stuart Olson Construction, Richmond, BC. (Method selection) (Newell) Newell, Ted; Formwork Designer, Ted Newell Engineering Ltd., Vancouver, BC. (Formwork) (Shaw) Shaw, A l ; Manager, Prebar Inc., Surrey, B C . (Rebarplacement) (Stefanich) Stefanich, Joe; Detailer / Coordinator, Harris Rebar, Delta, BC. (Rebar placement) www.harrisrebar.com (Yaeger) Yaeger, Mark; Superintendent, Stuart Olson Constructions Ltd., Richmond, BC. (Method selection) www.stuartolson.com (Young) Young, Norm; Manager / Estimator, Willow Bay Constructions Ltd., Surrey, B C . (Formwork) www.willowbayforming.com 132 A2. Feasibility Factors Knowledge Regarding Construction Methods I. Formwork Systems a) Slab formwork systems 1. Conventional wooden formwork system 2. Conventional metal formwork system 3. Flying Truss formwork system 4. Column-mounted flytable formwork system 5. Tunnel formwork system 6. Handset formwork system 1. Conventional wooden formwork system Site Characteristics 1. Site storage space area should be within 500 to 1000 ft2. Built floor area can also be used as a storage area (Young). Structural characteristics 1. The system is feasible on "non-typical" locations e.g., parking structure, non-typical floor locations, etc. 2. The shape of the slab-bay can be varying i.e. not constant for high-rise floors. 3. The area of the slab-bay can be varying i.e. not constant for high-rise floors. 4. The system is feasible when the slab-bay has beams, spandrel beams, and slab-bands (Newell). 5. The system is feasible when the sizes of beams, spandrel beams, slab-bands vary from location to location (Newell). 6. The system is feasible when storey height is less than 14 ft (Hanna, 1991). 7. The system is feasible when less than 5-6 reuses are required (Hanna, 1998). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production achievable is up to 15 ft2 / manhr (Young). 2. The formwork crew has normally 9 crew members (Young). 2. Conventional metal formwork system Site characteristics 1. Site storage space area should be at least 500 ft2; usually already built areas are used for storing shoring towers frames (Young). 133 Structural characteristics 1. The system is feasible on "non-typical" locations parking structure, non-typical floor locations, etc. 2. The shape of the slab-bay can vary i.e. not constant for high-rise floors., 3. The area of the slab-bay can vary i.e. not constant for high-rise floors. 4. The system is feasible when the slab-bay contains beams, spandrel beams, and slab-bands. 5. The system is feasible when the size of beams, spandrel beams, slab-bands vary from location to location. 6. The system can be used for storey heights up to 40 ft (EFCO, 2000a). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is 25 ft2 / manhr (EFCO, 2001). 2. The formwork crew has 9 crew members (Young). 3. Flying Truss formwork system Site Characteristics 1. Site Assembly space lengths should be at least equal to the maximum length of the flytable truss. 2. Site Assembly space widths should be at least equal to the maximum width of the flytable truss. 3. Site Assembly space area should be at least 1200 ft2; there should be at least 2 to 4 flying trusses assembly or dismantling space available on site (Young). The trusses can be assembled in-place at typical floor locations, but this method uses critical crane hours for material transportation. Structural characteristics 1. The location should be a "typical location" e.g., High-rise floor. 2. The shape of the slab-bay1 should be constant. 3. The area of the slab-bay should be constant for high-rise floors (Hanna, 1991) (Fischer, 1991). 4. The slab-bay should not contain slab-bands, beams, spandrel beams, or drop panels. 5. If the slab-bay has drop panels, maximum width and maximum length of the drop panels should be taken into consideration for optimum flytable size determination (Newell). 1 "Slab-bay" is an arbitrary concept, which can be defined as the slab portion that is supported by walls or columns (Newell) taking into consideration the possible orientation of flying trusses or column-mounted flytables. 134 6. If the slab-bay has beams and spandrel beams, then their size should not vary more than 10 %, for high-rise floors (Hanna, 1991). 7. If the slab-bay has spandrel beam, then the truss height of the flytable should be less than or equal to the storey height minus the spandrel beam depth (Heinz). Truss height of flytable <=. (story height to spandrel beam depth). 8. The system is feasible when the story height is within 7ft to 20 ft (Patent, 2000). 9. For the system to be economical the slab-bay width should be between 15 ft to 30ft. (Fischer, 1991), (Hanna, 1998). 10. The economical length of slab-bay is 22 ft (Fischer, 1991) (Hanna, 1998). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is up to 70 ft2 / manhr (Young). 2. The minimum reuses available should be at least 5-6 (Heinz) (Newell). 3. The flytable flying crew has 10 crew members (Young). 4. The open space must be at least equal to 1.5 times the maximum length of the flytable (Hanna, 1991). 5. The size of the flying truss table is usually dictated by the lifting capacity of the crane (Newell). 4. Column-mounted flytable formwork system Site characteristics 1. Site Assembly space lengths should be at least equal to the maximum length of the flytable. 2. Site Assembly space widths should be at least equal to the maximum width of the flytable. 3. Flytables are either assembled on site or the pre-assembled modules are bolted on site (Hanna, 1998) (CC, 1983). Structural characteristics 1. The location should be a "typical location" e.g., High-rise floors. 2. The shape of the slab-bay should be the same for all high-rise floors (Heinz) (Holm). 3. The shape of the slab-bay should be "rectangular". The columns or supporting walls need to be in a straight line (Holm) i.e., the supporting sides of flytable should be parallel to each other (Wallace, 1997)2. 4. The area of the slab-bay should be constant for all high-rise floors. Slab-bay width should remain constant for at least 6 to 8 floors (Hanna, 1998). 2 A case study indicated in the article Raising the Rio, Wallace (1997) described that the wedge-shaped column mounted flytable posed difficulties due to non-parallel supporting sides. "The workers had to move the column-mounted rollers back and forth while setting the forms; otherwise the forms would slip off the rollers." The contractor eventually switched to the flying truss method. 135 5. The system is feasible when it has at least 8 to 10 reuses (Hanna, 1998). 6. The slab-bay should not contain slab-bands, beams, spandrel beams, drop panels i.e. the slab-bay should be a "flat plate" (Holm) (Hanna, 1998). 7. If the slab-bay has a spandrel beam it should not be more thanl4 inches deep for economical use of the system (Hanna, 1998). 8. The optimum slab-bay width is between 16 ft to 20ft (Hanna, 1998). 9. The optimum length of slab-bay is between 30 to 40ft (Hanna, 1998). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production of the system is equal to 45 ft / manhr (Hanna, 1991). 2. The rate of production can be up to 70 ft2 / manhr (EFCO, 1999). 3. The formwork crew has 9 crew members (Hanna, 1998). 4. The open space must be at least equal to 1.5 times the maximum length of the flytable (Hanna, 1991). 5. Tunnel formwork system (Outinord Universal Inc) (DeBruin; Fallowfield) Site characteristics 1. Site Assembly space area should be at least 6000 ft , as the tunnel forms arrive in modular sections and need to be bolted together. Structural characteristics 1. The location should be a "typical" location e.g., High-rise floors. 2. The shape of the slab-bay should be constant for each reuse of the tunnel, with some minor width adjustment allowed via hinge panels. 3. The slab-bay should be supported by walls. 4. The wall should not have offsets, pilasters, or corners. 5. The height of wall should be constant for all floor locations. 6. The height of wall should be within 7.5 ft to 12 ft 7. The area of the slab-bay should be constant for each tunnel reuse. 8. A slab thickness within 5 to 7 in. is the most economical. 9. For use of tunnel form the slab-bay should not contain slab-bands, beams, spandrel beams, drop panels i.e. the slab-bay should be "flat plate". Slab beams within the constant slab depth are acceptable. 10. For use of a tunnel form the most economical slab-bay width is between 8 ft to 18ft. the maximum possible width is up to 32 ft. 11. For use of tunnel form the length of slab-bay should be less than 40 ft, although 80 ft length is achieved by placing tunnels end to end. 12. The quality of surface finish required is "smooth finish", ready for skim coat only. 13. The open space around the building should be at least 1.2 times the maximum length of the tunnel form for easy maneuverability around the building when flying tunnels. 136 14. The average weight of the tunnel formwork is 20.5 lbs / ft2. 15. There should be at least 100,000 ft2 floor area for tunnel formwork to be economically feasible. 16. There should be at least 40 concrete pours (daily cycles) for tunnel formwork to be economically feasible. Production characteristics 1. The rate of production of the method is approximately equal to 50 ft / manhr. 2. The formwork crew has 15 to 18 crew members. 3. The formwork system is compatible with "prefabrication of reinforcement" (welded wire fabric) for walls and slab deck to maintain a daily construction cycle. 4. The system requires normal strength concrete and heat curing (in colder climates) to achieve overnight stripping strength of 33% of the designed strength, to allow stripping 12 hr cured concrete. 5. The construction cycle should be 24 hours (1 day) for effective use of tunnel formwork. 6. Hand set slab formwork system (Topee, 2001) (Topee, 2000) Site characteristics 1. No feasibility knowledge was observed regarding site characteristics. Structural characteristics 1. The location should be a "non-typical" location e.g., parking structure. 2. The method is feasible when the shape of the slab-bay is varying i.e. not constant 3. The area of the slab-bay is varying i.e. not constant 4. Feasible if the slab-bay contains beams, spandrel beams, slab-bands, column capitals etc. 5. Feasible if the size of beams, spandrel beams, slab-bands, column capitals varying from location to location. 6. The quality of surface finish required is "smooth finish" (Topee, 2001). 7. The slab-bay has camber this system is especially feasible (Topee, 2001). 8. The system is feasible when storey height is up to 19 ft (Topee, 2001). 9. The slab thickness is up to 22 inches (Topee, 2000). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production required is 35 to 50 ft2 / manhr (Topee, 2000). 2. The formwork crew has 3 to 4 crew members (Topee, 2000). 137 b) Wall / Core wall / Column formwork systems 1. Conventional wooden formwork system 2. Steel framed modular formwork system 3. A l l steel modular formwork system 4. Wooden gang form system 5. Aluminum waler gang form system / Jump form system 6. A l l steel gang form system / Jump form system 7. Tunnel formwork system 8. Self climbing system 9. Slip form system 1. Conventional wooden formwork system (Young) (Newell) Site characteristics 1. Site storage space area should be at least 500 ft (Young). Structural characteristics 1. The system is feasible when the size of the offsets, inserts, corners, pilasters is varying i.e. not constant. 2. The system is economical when the available reuse for elements is up to 3 to 4 reuses (Hanna, 1998). 3. The wall thickness can be within 6 to 16 inches. (Koel, 1997). 4. The height of the wall is generally limited to 4 ft (Koel, 1997). 5. Using proprietary column clamps, column forms can be constructed up to 16 ft in height (Peurifoy, 1995). 6. The rate of pour for wall formwork is up to 4 ft / hr (Newell). 7. The allowable pour pressure is 600 to 750 psf. (Newell). 8. The column formwork is usually designed for full liquid head i.e., rate of pour is 8 ft / hr (Newell). 9. The column formwork is usually designed for pour pressure 1200 psf (Newell). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is less than 19 ft2 / manhr (Young). 2. The "formwork crew" is of size 7 crew members (Young). 2. Steel framed modular formwork system (Young) (Newell) Site characteristics 2 1. Site storage space area should be at least 500 ft (Young). 138 Structural characteristics 1. If the wall has offsets, inserts, corners, pilasters then this system is still feasible. 2. The size of the offsets, inserts, corners, pilasters is varying i.e., not constant for all high-rise locations. 3. The formwork can be used on walls ranging from 4 to 10. ft in height (Hurd, 1995). 4. The rate of pour is generally 7ft / hr (Newell). 5. The allowable pour pressure is 1200 psf. (Newell). 6. Typically tie spacing is 2 ft horizontally and 1 ft vertically (Patent, 2001). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is equal to 19ft 2 / manhr approx. (Young). 2. The formwork crew has 7 crew members (Young). 3. A l l Steel Modular formwork Site characteristics 1. Site storage space area should be at least 500 ft2 (Young). Structural characteristics 1. If wall has offsets, inserts, corners, pilasters then this system is still feasible. 2. The size of the offsets, inserts, corners, pilasters is varying i.e., not constant. 3. The system is generally not used for cores because of very close tie spacing; it is preferred for foundation work, walls, and columns (Holm). 4. The quality of surface finish is "smooth finish" (EFCO, 2000b). 5. For columns with width 10 to 30 inches no ties are required. A l l metal modules need three bolts for 8 ft height column corner (EFCO, 2000b). 6. The rate of pour is less than 7ft / hr (Newell) (Holm). 7. The allowable pour pressure is less than 1200 psf (Newell) (Holm). 8. The allowable tie spacing is generally 2 ft horizontal and 2 ft vertical (Holm). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production can be up to 65 ft2 / manhr (EFCO, 2000c). 2. The formwork crew has 6 crew members (EFCO, 2000c). 139 4. Wooden gang form Site characteristics 1. Site storage space area is required to assemble or store the largest gang form panel. These panels can be assembled on ground where it is easier to work .The gang size can be up to 30 x 50 ft (Hurd, 1995). Structural characteristics 1. The method is not suitable for walls with pilasters (Hanna, 1998). The offset and corners variations from floor to floor can be can be adjusted by considering their maximum sizes and the use of fillers (Newell). 2. The available reuse of formwork should be at least 30 to 40 (Backe, 1986). 3. The rate of pour is usually equal to 4ft / hr (Newell). 4. The allowable pour pressure is 600 to 750 psf (Newell). 5. The allowable tie spacing is between 3 ft to 4 ft (Newell). 6. Wooden column gang forms are generally designed for full liquid head (8 ft) i.e., 1200 psf (Newell). 7. The rate of pour for column formwork is usually 8 ft/ hr i.e., full liquid head (Newell). 8. The tie spacing for a column form is 2 ft 6 in (Newell). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production required is about 35 ft2/ manhr (Young). 2. The formwork crew has 7 crew members (Young). 5. Aluminum waler gang form / jump form system Site characteristics 1. Site storage space area is required to assemble or store largest gang form panel. Structural characteristics 1. The method is not suitable for walls with pilasters (Hanna, 1998). The offset and corners variations from floor to floor can be adjusted by considering their maximum sizes and the use of fillers (Newell). 2. The available reuse of formwork should be 30 to 40 (Backe, 1986). 3. Length of wall formwork can be up to 40ft (Patent, 1999). 4. Height of the wall formwork can be up to 22ft (Patent, 1999). 5. Jump forms can be 8 to 16 ft high and they can be 8 to 44 ft wide (Peurifoy, 95). 140 6. Jump form system needs a 5 ft wide operating platform (Peurifoy, 1995). 7. The rate of pour is usually between 6 to 9 ft/hr (Newell). 8. The allowable pour pressure is 1200 psf (Newell), but maximum designed pour pressure can be up to 2250 psf (Patent, 1999). 9. The allowable tie spacing for wall form is 6 ft (Newell). 10. The tie spacing for column form is usually 5 ft (Newell). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production required is about 35 ft2 / manhr (Young). 2. The formwork crew has 7 crew members (Young). 6. Steel gang form / Jump form Site characteristics 1. Site storage space area is required to assemble or store largest gang form panel. Structural characteristics 1. The method is not suitable for walls with pilasters (Hanna, 1998). The offset and corners variations from floor to floor can be can be adjusted by considering their maximum sizes and the use of fillers (Newell). 2. The available reuse of formwork should be 30 to 40 (Backe, 1986). 3. Jump forms can be 8 to 16 ft high and they can be 8 to 44 ft wide (Peurifoy, 1995). 4. The jump form system needs a 5 ft wide operating platform (Peurifoy, 1995). 5. The rate of pour is usually between 6 to 9 ft/hr (Newell). 6. The allowable pour pressure is within the range 1200 psf to 1500 psf (EFCO, 1994). 7. The allowable tie spacing is 6 ft to 8 ft (EFCO, 1994). 8. The tie spacing for column forms is usually 5 ft (Newell). Production characteristics 2 2 1. The rate of production required is within 55 ft / manhr to 70 ft / manhr (Form Marks). 2. The formwork crew has 7 crew members (Young). 7. Tunnel form system Please refer to Method (5). 141 8. Self-climbing formwork Site characteristics 1. No feasibility knowledge was observed regarding site characteristics. Structural characteristics 1. The method is economically feasible i f the building has at least 15 floors (Peurifoy, 1998). 2. There should be at least 30 reuses (Hanna, 1990). 3. Maximum floor-to-floor lift is up to 15 ft (Fulton, 1989). 4. The structure needs to be brought up several floors before using a self-climbing formwork system (Fulton, 1989). 5. No feasibility knowledge was observed regarding pour characteristics. Production characteristics 1. The formwork crew has 10 to 12 crew members (Hanna, 1998). 2. The location and capacity of cranes must be considered because it affects installation and removal of the self-climbing system (Fulton, 1989). 9. Slip form system (Camellerie, 1978) Site characteristics 1. No feasibility knowledge was observed regarding site characteristics. Structural characteristics 1. If the core wall has offsets, inserts, corbels then these members are placed later. 2. The available repetition of an element should provide 50 to 100 reuses i.e., the core should be 200 to 400 ft high (Hanna, 1990). 3. The ideal slipform should require at least 20 cubic yards of concrete per foot of height or per hour. 4. The quality of surface finish obtained is without horizontal construction joints and without tie holes. 5. The slump of concrete required is 4 inches plus or minus 1 inch. Production characteristics 1. The average rate of production is 8 to 12 inches per hour. 2. The production rate is dependent upon initial setting time of concrete, which in turn is dictated by the amount, type and grind of cement, concrete temperature, and admixtures. 142 II. Rebar Placement methods 1. Column Rebar Assembly 2. Column Rebar Prefabrication 3. Wall / Core Rebar Assembly 4. Wall / Core Partial Rebar Prefabrication 5. Wall / Core Rebar Prefabrication 6. Slab Rebar Assembly 7. Slab Rebar Prefabrication 1. Column Rebar Assembly (Fradley) (Stefanich) (Shaw) (Bichel) Site characteristics 1. Rebar is delivered to site in the order of assembly, which is dictated by the construction schedule. The rebar storage space should be enough to unload a delivery truck i.e., it should be at least 12 x 60 ft (Bichel). Structural characteristics 1. The column rebar is assembled in place when there are architectural details e.g., changing shape (Bichel). 2. The column rebar is assembled in place when there are multiple embedded metal plates for structural members. The prefabrication becomes time consuming due to the details of nails and studs of the metal plates to be embedded (Bichel). 3. Columns of greater heights are preferably prefabricated because the in-place rebar assembly needs scaffolds; moreover beyond 10 ft height one needs safety belts (WCB, n.d.). These factors contribute to a lower rate of production. Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is approximately 0.071 ton / manhr (14 manhr/ ton) (Shaw). 2. The rebar crew has 8 crew members (Stefanich). 2. Column Rebar Prefabrication (Fradley) (Stefanich) (Shaw) (Bichel) Site characteristics 1. In case of just in time delivery of prefabricated column rebar, site storage space is not needed (Bichel). Site rebar storage space length should be at least equal to the 143 sum of maximum height of column with laps and 4 ft space i.e., (Max.height of column + 4ft + laps). 2. If prefabrication is "Onsite", then site rebar assembly space length should be at least three times the sum of maximum height of column with laps and 4 ft space i.e., (Max.height of column + 4ft + laps) x 3. The linear layout of assembly space generally has rebar storage area, prefabrication area with a j ig for rebar assembly, and stacking area for prefabricated elements (Fradley), (Bichel). 3. If prefabrication is "Onsite", then site rebar assembly space area should be at least 1200 ft2 for a typical high-rise construction project (Bichel) i.e., 20 ft x 40 to 60 ft (Fradley). Structural characteristics 1. The height of large and heavy prefabricated column can be up to 30 ft (Stefanich) (Shaw). Special lifting devices and guy wires are required for rebar cage installation. 2. The weight large and heavy prefabricated column cage can be up to 2 tons (Shaw). Limited by the crane lifting capacity, at the tip of the boom, available on site (Bichel). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is 0.125 ton / manhr (8 manhr / ton) (Shaw). 2. The rebar crew has 8 crew members (Stefanich). 3. Wall Rebar Assembly (Fradley) (Stefanich) (Shaw) Site characteristics 1. Site storage space for rebar should be at least 12 x 60 ft (Bichel). Structural characteristics 1. Walls with a number of openings and larger openings such as doors are assembled in place (Shaw). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is 0.1 ton / manhr (10 manhr/ ton) (Shaw). 2. The rebar crew has 8 crew members (Stefanich). 144 4. Wall / Core wall Rebar Partial Prefabrication Site characteristics 1. Enough site rebar storage space should be available to store zones3, which are generally 24 ft in length (Bichel). Structural characteristics 1. The wall has shear zones that are prefabricated. The wall portion in between the zones is assembled in place (Bichel). Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is 0.1 ton / manhr (10 manhr/ ton) (Shaw). 2. The rebar crew has 8 crew members (Stefanich). 5. Wall / Core wall Rebar Prefabrication Site characteristics 1. If the prefabrication is "Onsite", then site rebar assembly space length should be at least three times the sum of maximum length of wall with laps and 4 ft space i.e., (Max.length of wall + 4ft + laps) x 3. 2. If the prefabrication is "Onsite", then site rebar assembly space area should be at least 1200 ft2 i.e., 20 ft x 40 to 60 ft (Fradley). Structural characteristics 1. The wall should not have more than 2 openings in a 30 ft length (Shaw). More openings makes it difficult to prefabricate. 2. The opening area should not be more than 1 m 2 i.e., 10.7639 ft2 (Shaw). Openings need additional steel around them. Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is 0.11 ton / manhr (9 manhr / ton) (Bichel). 2. The rate of production for a core wall is 0.1 ton / manhr (10 manhr / ton) (Shaw). 3. If the wall has shear "zones", total prefabrication will need more lap length and more rebar tonnage. 3 According to C S A Standard A23.3-94, in a seismic zone a structural frame of greater ductility is required. As an elasto-plastic system, such a frame is designed to accommodate the formation of plastc hinges. This seismic design creates regions of concentrated reinforcement in the shear elements (Fradley). These regions, called as "zones", are generally prefabricated. 145 6. Slab Reinforcement Assembly Site characteristics 1. The rebar storage space should be enough to unload a delivery truck i.e., it should be at least 12 x 60 ft (Bichel). Structural characteristics 1. If the vertical i.e., shear elements have "zones" this method is preferred. Production characteristics 1. The rate of production is 0.166 ton / manhr (6 manhr / ton) (Stefanich). 2. The rebar crew has 8 crew members (Stefanich). 7. Slab Rebar Prefabrication Site characteristics 1. If prefabrication is "Onsite", then site rebar assembly space length should be at least three times the sum of maximum length of slab section with laps and 4 ft space i.e., (Max. length of slab section + 4ft + laps) x 3. 2. If prefabrication is "Onsite", then site rebar assembly space width should be at least maximum width of slab section with laps and 4 ft space i.e., (Max.width of slab section + 4ft + laps). 3. If prefabrication is "Onsite", then site rebar assembly space area should be at least 1200 ft2 i.e., 20 ft x 40 to 60 ft (Fradley). Structural characteristics 1. The bottom rebar of the slab is seldom prefabricated; on the other hand top rebar is prefabricated depending upon the areas of typical top mats (Bichel). 2. There should be at least 20 identical sections of slab for this method to be feasible (Bennett, 1992). 3. There are various proprietary punching shear reinforcements available for flat slab rebar placement (BPG, 2001). Moreover, slab rebar can be prefabricated in the form of rebar mats, which makes rebar placement easier and faster ( B A M T E C , n.d.). 146 Production characteristics 1.. Proprietary prefabricated slab rebar mats can be placed at 4.5 ton / manhr ( B A M T E C , n.d.). 2. The rebar placement crew can be 2 crew members (BAMTEC, n.d.). 3. Prefabricated mats and proprietary punching shear reinforcement can save up to 50 % in man-hours (BRE). 4. The method is compatible with tunnel forming method for a faster construction cycle (deBruin). III. Concrete placement techniques 1. Crane and bucket method 2. Belt conveyor method 3. Placing boom pumping 4. Slickline pumping 5. Separate placing boom pumping 1. Crane and bucket method (Gastaldo) Site characteristics 1. Site Concrete equipment parking space length should be at least 30 ft + 8 ft i.e., space for ready-mix truck and bucket loading. 2. Site Concrete equipment parking space width should be at least 15 ft. 3. Site Concrete equipment parking space area should be at least 570 ft2. The site space should be sufficient for the concrete truck mixer parking and concrete bucket loading. One ready-mix truck needs at least 15 x 30 feet space (Wallace, 1998). Structural characteristics 1. The Concrete equipment parking space should not have any obstruction due to overhead electrical wires. 2. The method can handle low slump concrete. 3. Concrete of maximum aggregate size up to 4 inches can be placed with this method (Slagle, 1997). 4. The method becomes feasible when small quantities of different strength concrete need to be placed almost simultaneously (CC, 1982). Production characteristics 1. The rate of concrete placement is 45 to 50 yd 3 / hr. 2. The concrete placement crew has 8 crew members. 147 2. Belt Conveyor method Site characteristics 1. Site concrete equipment parking space length should be at least 45 ft + 30 ft i.e., space enough for a truck mounted belt conveyor and ready-mix trucks. 2. Site concrete equipment parking space width should be at east 30 ft i.e., maximum outrigger spread of the truck mounted belt conveyors (Putzmeister, 2001a). 3. Site concrete equipment parking space area should be at least 2250 ft2 i.e., 4. The Truck mounted belt conveyors have outriggers that need to be set on firm and leveled ground. Rough, sandy, or sloped terrain as well as tight quarters at the site can rule out economical use of portable conveyors (Sagle, 1997). Structural characteristics 1. The maximum vertical reach required for concrete placement can be up to 87 ft. 2. The maximum horizontal reach required for concrete placement can be up to 150 ft. 3. The maximum vertical downward reach required for concrete placement can be up to 40 ft. 4. The maximum size of the concrete aggregate can be is 4 inches (Putzmeister, 2001a). 5. The range of required slump is within 1 to 7 inches (CC, 1992). 6. The best slump range is between 2 and 4 inches (CC, 1992). Continuous concrete placing ability with higher rate of concrete placement makes the conveyor method cost effective (Slagle, 1997). Production characteristics 1. The concrete placement crew has 8 crew members (Gastaldo). 2. The rate of concrete placement should be within 50 to 360 yd 3 / hr. 3. Placing boom concrete placement (Gastaldo) Site characteristics 1. Site concrete equipment parking space length should be at least 51 ft + 30ft. 2. Site concrete equipment parking space width should be at least 36 ft i.e., maximum outrigger spread of the truck mounted placing booms (Putzmeister, 2001b). 3. Site concrete equipment parking space area should be at least 2916 ft2. 4. Job site with area 50 x 100 i.e., 5000 ft2 is a comfortable jobsite (Wallace, 1998). 5. The unfolding height required is up to 52 ft (Putzmeister, 2001b). 148 6. The concrete equipment parking space should be stable, flat, and clear of rubble (Wallace, 1998). The vehicle parking spot should be away from any excavations, power lines, and other obstructions (Fisher, 1997). Structural characteristics 1. The concrete equipment parking space should not have any obstruction due to overhead electrical wires i.e. the boom should have at least 17 ft clearance at anytime (Fisher, 1997). 2. The maximum vertical reach required for concrete placement can be up to 188 ft. 3. The maximum horizontal reach required for concrete placement can be up to 174 ft. 4. The maximum vertical downward reach required for concrete placement can be up to 137 ft. 5. The maximum size of the concrete aggregate should be 2.5 inches (Putzmeister, 2001b). 6. The range of required slump is within 2 to 9 inches (Gastaldo). Production characteristics 1. The concrete placement crew is of size 8 crew members (Gastaldo). 2. The rate of concrete placement should be within 50 to 210 yd 3 / hr. 3. The method is feasible when concrete volume to be placed for horizontal elements is equal to 80 m 3 i.e., 104 yd 3 . 4. The economical rate of concrete placement is 65 m 3 / hr i.e., 85 yd 3 / hr. 5. The method is feasible when concrete volume to be placed for vertical elements is at least 40- 50 m 3 i.e., 52 to 65 yd 3 . 6. The "slump loss" in pumping can be up to 4 inches (Gastaldo), (Crepas, 1985). 7. The method should not be used when wind speed is more than 70 km / hr (Gastaldo). 4. Slickline pumping method (Gastaldo) (Crepas, 1985) Site characteristics 1. Site concrete equipment parking space length should be at least 25 ft + 30 ft 2. Site concrete equipment parking space width should be at least 30 ft. There should be room for two ready-mix trucks at the pump hopper (Crepas, 1985). 3. Site concrete equipment parking space area should be at least 1650 ft . 4. Job site with area 50 x 100 i.e., 5000 ft2 is a comfortable jobsite (Wallace, 1998). 5. The slickline pumping for high rises needs a 150 feet long "base line" to run on ground before vertical concrete pipeline (Crepas, 1985). Therefore the open space around building width + (Building width / 2) should be at least 150 ft. 149 6. Site space for thrust block and hydraulic diversion block should be at least 45ft x 30ft (Gastaldo). Structural characteristics 1. The maximum vertical reach for concrete placement can be up to 400 to 600 ft (Putzmeister). 2. The maximum horizontal reach for concrete placement can be up to 1000 to 1200 ft (Putzmeister). 3. The maximum size of the aggregate can be up to 2.5 inches (Putzmeister, 2001c). 4. The range of required slump should be within 2 to 9 inches (Gastaldo). Production characteristics 1. The concrete placement crew has 8 crew members (Gastaldo). 2. The rate of concrete placement should be within 50 to 210 yd /hr. 3. The breakeven point for concrete pumping is assumed to be 50 m 3 i.e., 65 yd 3 (Lewis, 1999). 4. The slickline pumping method is used for "bottom-up" pumping for vertical elements. 5. The "slump loss" in pumping can be up to 4 inches (Gastaldo) (Crepas, 1985). 5. Separate Concrete placement boom Site characteristics 1. Site concrete equipment parking space length should be at least 25 ft + 30 ft. 2. Site concrete equipment parking space width should be at least 30 ft. There should be room for two ready-mix trucks at the pump hopper (Crepas, 1985). 3. Site concrete equipment parking space area should be at least 1650 ft2. 4. Job site with area 50 x 100 i.e., 5000 ft2 is a comfortable jobsite (Wallace, 1998). 5. The slickline pumping for high rises need 150 feet long "base line" to run on ground before vertical concrete pipeline (Crepas, 1985). Therefore the open space around building width + (Building width / 2) should be at least 150 ft. 6. Site space for thrust block and hydraulic diversion block should be at least 45 ft x 30 ft (Gastaldo). Structural characteristics 1. The maximum vertical reach required for concrete placement can be 400 to 600 ft (Putzmeister, 2001c). 2. The maximum horizontal reach required for concrete placement (boom) should be within 79 to 111 ft (Putzmeister, 2001d). 3. The pedestal for placing boom requires "block hole" for separate boom mast of size 3 ft x 3 ft (Harvell, 1991). 150 4. The block hole location should be such that it covers all concrete placement area within the boom's horizontal reach. 5. The block hole location should be such that it covers concrete placement area for all the floors (Harvell, 1991). 6. The maximum size of the concrete aggregate can be up to 2.5 inches (Putzmeister, 200Id). 7. The range of required slump should be within 2 to 9 inches (Gastaldo). Production characteristics 1. The concrete placement crew is of size 8 crew members (Gastaldo). 2. The rate of concrete placement should be within 50 to 210 yd 3 / hr. 3. The method is feasible when concrete volume for horizontal elements is at least 80 m 3 i.e., 104 yd 3 . 4. The economical rate of concrete placement is 65 m 3 / hr i.e., 85 yd 3 / hr. 5. The method is feasible when concrete volume for vertical elements is at least 40-50 m 3 i.e., 52 to 65 yd 3 . 6. The "slump loss" in pumping can be up to 4 inches (Gastaldo), (Crepas, 1985). 7. Concrete placement should be at least 3 times per week with minimum size of concrete placement being 60 to 100 m 3 (Gastaldo) i.e., 78 to 130 yd 3 . The concrete quantity should be at least 235 yd 3 per floor assuming construction of one week with at least three concrete placements. 8. The method is suitable when the slab is post tensioned (Crepas, 1985). 9. For safety reasons the placer booms should not be operated if the wind speed exceeds 77 km / hr (ACPA, 2001). 151 APPENDIX - B Examples of PCBS and M&RBS Facts Exported to the CLIPS Environment (Excerpted from file "TESTda.fct") 152 Appendix B Examples of PCBS and M&RBS Facts Exported to the CLIPS Environment 333333333333333333?3)??33??333333333?333 3333 ;;; PCBS relationship facts (paren (parem (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component 3333333333 333333333 3333 3333 3 3 1") (chi ld_component "2")) 1") (chi ld_component "3")) 3") (chi Idcomponent "4")) 4") (chi Idcomponent "5")) 4") (chi Idcomponent "6")) 4") (chi Idcomponent "7")) •4") (chi Idcomponent "8")) •4») (chi Idcomponent "9")) '4") (chi Idcomponent "10") '4") (chi ld_component "11") •4") (chi ld_component "12") '4") (chi Idcomponent "13") •4") (chi Idcomponent "14") '4") (chi ld_component "15") '4") (chi ld_component "16") '4") (chi Idcomponent "17") '4") (chi Idcomponent "18") -4") (chi Idcomponent "19") •4") (chi Idcomponent "20") •4") (chi Idcomponent "21") '4") (chi Idcomponent "22") •4") (chi Idcomponent "23") '4") (chi Idcomponent "24") '4") (chi Idcomponent "25") '4") (chi Idcomponent "26") '4") (chi Idcomponent "27") •4") (chi Idcomponent "28") -4--) (chi Idcomponent "29") '4") (chi Idcomponent "30") -4») (chi Idcomponent "31") '4") (chi ld_component "32") '4") (chi Idcomponent "33") '4") (chi Idcomponent "34") '3") (chi Idcomponent "35") '35" ) (child_component "36' '36" ) (child_component "37' '37" ) (childcomponent "38' 153 (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (paren t_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parent_component (parent (parentcomponent (parent (parentcomponent '37") (chi ldcomponent "39 '37") (chi ld_component "40 '37") (chi ld_component "41 '37") (chi ldcomponent "42 '37") (chi ld_component "43 '37") (chi ld_component "44 '37") (chi ld_component "45 '37") (chi ldcomponent "46 '37") (chi ldcomponent "47 '36") (chi ldcomponent "48 '48") (chi ld_component "49 '48") (chi ldcomponent "50 '50") (chi ldcomponent "51 '50") (chi ldcomponent "52 '48") (chi ldcomponent "53 '53") (chi ldcomponent "54 '53") (chi ldcomponent "55 '53") (chi ld_component "56 '48") (chi ld_component "57 '48") (chi ld_component "58 '48") (chi ld_component "59 '48") (chi ld_component "60 '60") (chi ld_component "61 '60") (chi ld_component "62 '36") (chi ld_component "63 '63") (chi ldcomponent "64 '63") (chi ldcomponent "65 '63") (chi ldcomponent "66 '63") (chi ld_component "67 '63") (chi ld_component "68 '68") (chi ldcomponent "69 '63") (chi ld_component "70 '63") (chi ldcomponent "71 '63") (chi ld_component "72 '63") (chi ld_component "73 73") (chi ld_component "74 '63") (chi ld_component "75 75") (chi ld_component "76 '63") (chi ld_component "77 '63") (chi ld_component "78 '63") (chi ld_component "79 79") (chi ld_component "80 79") (chi ld_component "81 '63") (chi ld_component "82 '82") (chi ld_component "83 '63") (chi ld_component "84 154 (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (parem (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (parem (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (paren (parem (paren (paren (paren (parem (paren (paren (paren (parem (parem (parem (paren component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component '84" '63" '86" '86" '63" '89" '89" '63" '92" '63" '63" '63" *96" '96" '63" '63" '100" '35") '102" '103" '104" '103" '106" •103" •108" '103" '110" '103" '112" '103" '114" •103" '116" '103" '118" '103" '120" '103" •122" '122" '103" '125" T03" '127" '103" '129" child_component "85")) childcomponent "86")) child_component "87")) childcomponent "88")) childcomponent "89")) childcomponent "90")) childcomponent "91")) childcomponent "92")) childcomponent "93")) child_component "94")) child_component "95")) 'childcomponent "96")) child_component "97")) child_component "98")) childcomponent "99")) childcomponent "100"), (child_component "101")) childcomponent "102")N (child_component "103" (childcomponent "104" (child_component "105" (child_component "106" (child_component "107" (child_component "108" (childcomponent "109" (child_component "110" (childcomponent "111" (childcomponent "112" (childcomponent "113" (childcomponent "114" (childcomponent "115" (childcomponent "116" (childcomponent "117" (child_component "118" (childcomponent "119" (child_component "120" (childcomponent "121" (child_component "122" (child_component "123" (child_component "124" (childcomponent "125" (child_component "126" (child_component "127" (child_component "128" (child_component "129" (childcomponent "130" (parent (parentcomponent "103") (child_component "131")) (parent (parentcomponent "103") (child_component "132")) (parent (parent_component "103") (child_component "133")) (parent (parent_component "103") (child_component "134")) (parent (parent_component "103") (child_component "135")) (parent (paren t_component "103") (childcomponent "136")) (parent (parent_component "3") (childcomponent "137")) (parent (parentcomponent "1") (childcomponent "138")) j????? PCBS facts ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3 3 3 3 3 J 5 3 3 3 ? ? ? ? 3 3 ? 3 3 5 3 3 J » 3 J 3 3 3 J 3 3 J ? 3 > 3 3 J J (pcbscomponent (name "1") (path "GIA") (code "GIA") (description " Residential High-Rise Project") (componen ttype "Project") (attributes) (attributetype) (attributevalues)) (pcbs_component (name "2") (path "GIA.SiteLoc") (code "SiteLoc") (description "Site Location") (componenttype "Location Set") (attributes "Length" "Width" "Site Storage Area" "Open Space Length" "Parking Space Length" "Parking Space Width" "Rebar Storage Space Length" "Rebar Storage Space Width" "Rebar Fabrication Space Length" "Rebar Fabrication Space Width" "Horizontal Formwork Storage Space Length" "Horizontal Formwork Storage Space Width" "Vertical Formwork Storage Space Length" "Vertical Formwork Storage Space Width") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.SiteLoc/1] [GIA.SiteLoc/2] [GIA.SiteLoc/3] [GIA.SiteLoc/4] [GIA.SiteLoc/5] [GIA.SiteLoc/6] [GIA.SiteLoc/7] [GIA.SiteLoc/8] [GIA.SiteLoc/9] [GIA.SiteLoc/10] [GIA.SiteLoc/11] [GIA.SiteLoc/12] [GIA.SiteLoc/13] [GIA.SiteLoc/14])) (pcbscomponent (name "3") (path "GIA.Tower") (code "Tower") (description "High Rise Tower") (componentjype "Subproject") (attributes) (attribute_type) (attribute_values)) (pcbs_component (name "4") (path "GIA.Tower.TLoc") (code "TLoc") (description "High Rise Tower Locations") (componenttype "Location Set") (attributes) (attribute_type) (attribute_values)) (pcbs_component (name "35") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR") (code "SupSTR") (description "High rise Tower Super Structure") (componenttype "System") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape") (attributejype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/4] 156 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR/8])) (pcbscomponent (name "36") (path "GIA.Tower. SupSTR. VertEle") (code "VertEle") (description "Vertical Components") (componenttype "Subsystem") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle/11])) >>>>>>>>>> PCBS columns ;;;;;;;;;;; (pcbs_component (name "37") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols") (code "Cols") (description "Columns") (component_type "Element") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Width" "Height" "Number of Elements" "Max. Height")(attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/1 ] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VerfEle.Cols/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols/16])) (pcbs_component (name "38") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml") (code "Colml") (description "Column A") (component_type "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Width" "Height" "Number of Elements" "Max. Height") (attributejype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" 157 "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/1] [GIA.Tower. SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm 112] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VerfEle.Cols.Colml/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/13] [GIA.Tower. SupSTR. VertEle. Cols.Colm 1/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VerfEle.Cols.Colml/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colml/16])) (pcbscomponent (name "39") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2") (code "Colm2") (description "Column B") (componenttype "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Width" "Height" "Number of Elements" "Max. Height") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/l] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm2/16])) 158 ? 9 ) ) S ? ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 5 ) ? ? ) ? ? ) ? ? ? ) ? ? ? ? 5 ? ? ? 9 9 ? ? ? ? ? 9 ? ? ? 9 9 5 ) ) ? ? ? ? ? ? PCBS core ,,,,,,,,,,, (pcbs_component (name "48") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core") (code "Core") (description "High Rise Tower Core") (component_type "Element") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Height" "Width" "Number of Elements") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core/1 ] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core/15])) (pcbs_component (name "49") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.Szone") (code "Szone") (description "Shear zones of rebar") (componenttype "Content") (attributes) (attribute_type) (attributevalues)) (pcbs_component (name "50") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll") (code "CWall l " ) (description "Core Wall A") (componenttype "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Height" "Width" "Number of Elements") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core.CWalll/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core.CWalll/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core.CWalll/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll/13] 159 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll/15])) (pcbs_component (name "51") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll.Cornrl") (code "Cornrl") (description "Corner") (componenttype "SubSubelement") (attributes "Length" "Width") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll.Cornrl/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.C Wall l.Cornr 1/2])) (pcbscomponent (name "52") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll.Opengl") (code "Opengl") (description "Openging") (componenttype "SubSubelement") (attributes "Length" "Height") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWalll .Opengl/1 ] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWalll.Opengl/2])) (pcbs_component (name "53") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWall2") (code "CWall2") (description "Core Wall B") (component_type "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Height" "Width" "Number of Elements") (attributejype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/l ] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWall2/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWall2/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWall2/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core.CWall2/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Core.CWall2/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VerfEle.Core.CWall2/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Core.CWall2/15])) 160 ? ? ? ? ? ? 5 3 ? 3 J 5 5 3 9 3 ? ? ? 3 ? 3 9 S ? 3 J 5 3 9 9 3 3 ) 9 9 3 3 3 J ? ? 3 ? ? 3 P C B S walls ;^^^^» (pcbs_component (name "63") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall") (code "ShWall") (description "Shear Walls") (component_type "Element") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Height" "Width" "Number of Elements") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VerfEle.ShWall/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall/15])) (pcbs_component (name "64") (path "GIA.Tower. SupSTR.VertEle. ShWall. Szone") (code "Szone") (description "Shear zones of rebar") (componenttype "Content") (attributes) (attribute_type) (attributevalues)) (pcbs_component (name "65") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll") (code "SWalll") (description "Shear Wall A - non typical walls at GFL") (component_type "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Height" "Width" "Number of Elements") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/2] [GIA.Tower. SupSTR. VertEle. ShWall. S Wall 1 /3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/12] 161 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWalll/15])) (pcbs_component (name "66") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2") (code "SWall2") (description "Shear Wall B - non typical walls at 2nd floor") (component_type "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Height" "Width" "Number of Elements") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/l] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall2/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertE(pcbs_component (name "67") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3") (code "SWalB") (description "Shear Wall M") (component_type "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Rate of Pour" "Length" "Height" "Width" "Number of Elements") (attributejype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/l] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/10] 162 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.ShWall.SWall3/15])) (pcbs_component (name "102") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle") (code "HoriEle") (description "Horizontal Components") (component_type "Subsystem") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Number of Elements") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower. SupSTR.HoriEle/1] [GIA.Tower. SupSTR.HoriEle/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle/11])) (pcbs_component (name "103") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab") (code "Slab") (description "High Rise Floor Slab") (component_type "Element") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Number of Elements" "Length" "Width" "Thickness" "Horizontal Distance" "Vertical Distance" "Storey Height" "Min. Width" "SlabBay Support is Uniform" "SlabBay Supporting Sides are Parallel") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Boolean" "Boolean") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab/20])) 163 (pcbscomponent (name "104") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl") (code "SIBayl") (description "SlabBay A") (componenttype "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Number of Elements" "Length" "Width" "Thickness" "Horizontal Distance" "Vertical Distance" "Storey Height" "Min. Width" "SlabBay Support is Uniform" "SlabBay Supporting Sides are Parallel") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Boolean" "Boolean") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/11] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl/20])) (pcbscomponent (name "105") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl.SlBandl") (code "SlBandl") (description "Slabband 1") (componentjype "SubSubelement") (attributes "Depth" "Width") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl.SlBandl/1] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBayl.SlBandl/2])) (pcbs_component (name "106") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2") (code "SlBay2") (description "SlabBay B") (componenttype "Subelement") (attributes "Formwork Quantity" "Rebar Quantity" "Concrete Quantity" "Surface Area" "Time Frame for Concreting" "Time Frame for Rebar" "Time Frame for Formwork" "Shape" "Slump Range" "Max. Size of Aggregate" "Number of Elements" "Length" "Width" "Thickness" "Horizontal Distance" "Vertical Distance" "StoreyHeight" "Min . Width" "SlabBay Support is Uniform" "SlabBay Supporting Sides are Parallel") (attribute_type 164 "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Linguistic" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Boolean" "Boolean") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/l] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2/20])) (pcbscomponent (name "107") (path "GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2.SlBandl") (code "SiBandl") (description "Slabband") (component_type "SubSubelement") (attributes "Width" "Depth") (attribute_type "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2.SlBandl/l] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.HoriEle.Slab.SlBay2.SlBandl/2])) ;;;;;;;;;; M & R B S Realtionship facts ;;;;;;;;;;; (parent (parent_component "MRBS1") (child_component "MRBS2")) (parent (parent_component "MRBS2") (childcomponent "MRBS3")) (parent (parent_component "MRBS3") (child_component "MRBS4")) (parent (parent_component "MRBS3") (child_component "MRBS5")) (parent (parent_component "MRBS1") (child_component "MRBS6")) (parent (parent_component "MRBS6") (childcomponent "MRBS7")) (parent (parentcomponent "MRBS7") (child_component "MRBS 8")) (parent (parent_component "MRBS1") (childcomponent "MRBS9")) (parent (parent_component "MRBS9") (child_component "MRBS 10")) (parent (parentcomponent "MRBS 10") (child_component "MRBS 11")) (parent (parentcomponent "MRBS 10") (childcomponent "MRBS 12")) 165 (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent_ (parent_ (parent_ (parent_ (parent_ (parent_ (parent_ (parent (parent_ (parent_ (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent (parent component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component component M R B S 10") (child_component "MRBS 13")) MRBS1") (child_component "MRBS 14")) M R B S 14") (child_component "MRBS 15")) M R B S 15") (childcomponent "MRBS 16")) M R B S 15") (child_component "MRBS 17")) MRBS1") (child_component "MRBS 18")) M R B S 18") (child_component "MRBS 19")) M R B S 19") (childcomponent "MRBS20")) MRBS1") (child_component "MRBS21")) MRBS21") (child_component "MRBS22")) MRBS22") (child_component "MRBS23")) MRBS22") (child_component "MRBS24")) MRBS22") (child_component "MRBS25")) M R B S l " ) (child_component "MRBS26")) MRBS26") (childcomponent "MRBS27")) MRBS27") (child_component "MRBS28")) MRBS27") (child_component "MRBS29")) M R B S l " ) (child_component "MRBS30")) MRBS30") (childcomponent "MRBS31")) MRBS31") (child_component "MRBS32")) M R B S l " ) (child_component "MRBS33")) MRBS33") (child_component "MRBS34")) 'MRBS34") (child_component "MRBS35")) 'MRBS34") (child_component "MRBS36")) 'MRBS34") (childcomponent "MRBS37")) 'MRBSl" ) (child_component "MRBS38")) 'MRBS38") (childcomponent "MRBS39")) 'MRBS39") (child_component "MRBS40")) 'MRBS39") (childcomponent "MRBS41")) 'MRBS39") (child_component "MRBS42")) 'MRBSl" ) (child_component "MRBS43")) 'MRBS43") (child_component "MRBS44")) 'MRBS44") (child_component "MRBS45")) 'MRBSl" ) (child_component "MRBS46")) 'MRBS46") (child_component "MRBS47")) 'MRBS47") (child_component "MRBS48")) 'MRBS47") (childcomponent "MRBS49")) •MRBS47") (child_component "MRBS50")) ;;;;;;;;;; M & R B S Method Statement facts ;;;;;;;;;;; (mrbs_component (name "MRBS1") (path "ROOT") (code "ROOT") (description " High-rise Superstructure Construction") (componenttype "Method Statement") (attributes) (parameterorcondition) (attributetype) (attribute_values)) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS2") (path "ROOT.FormCol") (code "FormCol") (description "Formwork for Columns") (component_type "Operation") (attributes) (parameterorcondition) (attribute_type) (attributevalues)) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS3") (path "ROOT.FormCol.WGang") (code "WGang") (description "Wooden Gang Formwork") (componenttype "Method") (attributes "Rate of Production" "Min. Reuse Required" "Storage Space Length Required" "Storage Space Width Required" "Allowable Rate of Pour" "Allowable Tie Spacing") (parameterorcondition "Parameter" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [ROOT.FormCol.WGang/1] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang/2] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang/3] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang/4] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang/5] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang/6])) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS4") (path "ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC") (code "WGC") (description "Wooden Gangform for Column") (componenttype "Resource") (attributes "Rate of Production" "Min. Reuse Required" "Storage Space Length Required" "Storage Space Width Required" "Allowable Rate of Pour" "Allowable Tie Spacing") (parameter_or_condition "Parameter" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/1] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/2] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/3] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/4] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/5] [ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/6])) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS5") (path "ROOT.FormCol.WGang.FCrew") (code "FCrew") (description "Formwork Crew") (component_type "Resource") (attributes "Number of Crew Members") (parameter_or_condition "Parameter") (attribute_type "Quantitative") (attribute_values [ROOT.FormCol.WGang.FCrew/1])) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS6") (path "ROOT.RebarCol") (code "RebarCol") (description "Construction of typical floor of a High-rise") (componenttype "Operation") (attributes) (parameter_or_condition) (attributetype) (attribute_values)) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS7") (path "ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab") (code "PreFab") (description "Rebar Prefabrication") (component_type "Method") (attributes "Rate of Production" "Rebar Site Storage Length Required" "Rebar Fabrication Site Length Required" "Rebar Fabrication Site Width Required" "Rebar Fabrication Site Area 167 Required") (parameterorcondition "Parameter" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/1] [ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/2] [ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/3] [ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/4] [ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/5])) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS8") (path "ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab.RCrew") (code "RCrew") (description "Rebar Crew") (componenttype "Resource") (attributes "Number of Crew Members") (parameter_or_condition "Parameter") (attributetype "Quantitative") (attribute_values [ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab.RCrew/1 ])) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS9") (path "ROOT.ConcCol") (code "ConcCol") (description "Concrete placing for Columns") (componenttype "Operation") (attributes) (parameterorcondition) (attributetype) (attributevalues)) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS 10") (path "ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck") (code "CrBuck") (description "Concrete Placing with Crane & Bucket") (componenttype "Method") (attributes "Rate of Concrete Placement" "Parking Space Length Required" "Parking Space Width Required" "Parking Space Area Required" "Max. Size of Aggregate") (parameterorcondition "Parameter" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/1] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/2] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/3] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/4] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/5])) (mrbscomponent (name "MRBS 11") (path "ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane") (code "Crane") (description "Tower Crane Peiner Hammerhead Tower Crane") (componenttype "Resource") (attributes "Rate of Concrete Placement" "Max. Hook height" "Horizontal hook speed" "Vertical Speed" "Boom length" "Max.Weight" "Max.Weight at boom tip" "Parking Space Length Required" "Parking Space Width Required" "Parking Space Area Required" "Max. Size of Aggregate") (parameterorcondition "Parameter" "Parameter" "Parameter" "Parameter" "Parameter" "Parameter" "Parameter" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition" "Condition") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attribute_values [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/1 ] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/2] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/3] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/4] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/5] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/6] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/7] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/8] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/9] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/10] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/11])) (mrbscomponent (name "MRBS 12") (path "ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket") (code "Bucket") (description "Concrete Bucket - Upright") (componenttype "Resource") (attributes "Concrete Capacity" "Loading Height" "Outside diameter" "Inside diameter" "Weight") (parameterorcondition "Parameter" "Parameter" "Parameter" "Parameter" 168 "Parameter") (attributetype "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative" "Quantitative") (attributevalues [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/1 ] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/2] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/3] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/4] [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/5])) (mrbs_component (name "MRBS 13") (path "ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.CCrew") (code "CCrew") (description "Crane and Bucket concrete placement crew") (component_type "Resource") (attributes "Number of crew members") (parameter_or_condition "Parameter") (attributetype "Quantitative") (attribute_values [ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.CCrew/1])) 169 APPENDIX - C Examples of PCBS and M&RBS Instances Exported to the CLIPS Environment (Excerpted from file "TESTda.ist") 170 Appendix C Examples of PCBS and M&RBS Instances Exported to the CLIPS Environment ;;;;;;;;; PCBS "Site Location" instances ;;;;;;;;;;; ([GIA.SiteLoc/1] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_value_list [GIA.SiteLoc/l/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/l/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 199.25) (value2nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/2] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_value_Iist [GIA.SiteLoc/2/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/2/SITE] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 120.75) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/3] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft2") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.SiteLoc/3/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/3/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4214.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/4] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_value_list [GIA.SiteLoc/4/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/4/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 117.5) 171 (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/5] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_value_list [GIA.SiteLoc/5/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/5/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 96.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/6] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_value_list [GIA.SiteLoc/6/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/6/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 37.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/7] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.SiteLoc/7/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/7/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 64.0) (value2nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/8] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_value list [GIA.SiteLoc/8/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/8/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 10.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/9] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_value_list [GIA.SiteLoc/9/SITE])) 172 ([GIA.SiteLoc/9/SITE] ofPCBS_VALTJE (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.0) (value2nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/10] of P C B S _ D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_valueJist [GIA.SiteLoc/10/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/10/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/11] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.SiteLoc/11/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/11/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 51.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/12] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.SiteLoc/12/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/12/SITE] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 32.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/13] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.SiteLoc/13/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/13/SITE] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 51.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.SiteLoc/14] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "SITE") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.SiteLoc/14/SITE])) ([GIA.SiteLoc/14/SITE] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 32.0) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.TLoc.2/1] of P C B S D A T A (unit "mm2") (locationjist) (attribute_valuelist)) ;;;;;;;;; PCBS subelement "Column 4" instances ;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 9999999999919999999999999199199999999999999999999999991191911111111111111919111111111 ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft2") (locationjist "GFL" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18 "19" "20") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/GFL] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 121.0) (value2 nil)) 174 ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/5] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/6] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/8] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/9] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/10] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/l 1] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/12] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/13] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/14] o f P C B S _ V A L U E 175 (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/15] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/16] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/17] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/l 8] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/19] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l/20] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 86.94) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2] of P C B S D A T A (unit "Tn") (locationjist " G F L " "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19""20") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/ll] 176 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/12] [GLA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/GFL] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.41) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/5] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/6] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/8] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/9] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/10] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/l 1] of P C B S _ V A L U E 177 (condition "EQ") (valuel .0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/12] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/13] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/14] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/l 5] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/16] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/17] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/l 8] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/19] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/2/20] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.19) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3] of P C B S D A T A (unit"yd3") (locationjist "GFL" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19""20") (attribute_valuelist [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/GFL] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 2.44) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/5] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/6] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel .1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/8] of P C B S _ V A L U E 179 (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/9] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/10] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/l 1] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/12] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/13] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/14] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/15] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/16] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/17] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") 180 (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/18] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/19] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/3/20] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.11) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/4] of P C B S D A T A (unit "$2") (location list) (attribute_value_list)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/5] of P C B S D A T A (unit "hr") (locationlist) (attributevaluejist)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/6] of P C B S D A T A (unit "hr") (locationlist) (attribute_value_list)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/7] of P C B S D A T A (unit "hr") (locationlist) (attribute_value_list)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8] of P C B S D A T A (unit"") (locationjist " G F L " "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/4] 181 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/GFL] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/2] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/3] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/4] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/5] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/6] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) 182 ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/8] o f P C B S V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/9] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/10] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/l 1] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/12] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/13] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/14] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/15] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/16] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/17] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/l 8] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/19] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/8/20] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel "Rectangular") (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/9] of P C B S D A T A (unit "in") (locationlist) (attribute_value_list)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/10] of P C B S D A T A (unit "in") (locationlist) (attributevaluelist)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l 1] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationlist) (attributevaluelist)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist "GFL" "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16 "17" "18" "19" "20") (attributevalueJist [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l 2/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/2] 184 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/GFL] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/2] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/3] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/4] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/5] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/6] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/8] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GLA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/9] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/10] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/l 1] of PCBS J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/12] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/13] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/14] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/15] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/16] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/17] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/18] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/19] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/12/20] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationlist " G F L " "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20") (attribute_value_list [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colni4/13/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/14] [GLA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l 3/15] 187 [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l 3/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/GFL] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/2] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/3] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/4] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/5] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/6] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l3/8] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/9] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel. 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/10] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/l 1] of PCBS_VALTJE (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/12] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/13] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/14] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l 3/15] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel .0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/16] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/17] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/18] o f P C B S _ V A L U E 189 (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/19] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/13/20] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "WR") (valuel 0.83) (value2 1.5)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationjist " G F L " "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20") (attributevaluejist [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/2] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/3] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/4] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l 4/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle. Cols.Colm4/14/l 8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/GFL] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 11.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/2] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") 190 (valuel 9.0) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/3] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/4] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/5] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/6] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/8] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/9] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/10] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/l 1] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colni4/14/12] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/13] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/14] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/15] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/16] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/17] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/18] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/19] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/14/20] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 9.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15] of P C B S D A T A (unit "No.") (locationjist "GFL" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20") (attribute_valuejist [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colni4/15/GFL] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/5] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/6] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colni4/15/7] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/8] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/9] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/10] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/ll] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/12] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/13] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/14] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/15] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/16] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/17] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/18] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/19] [GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/20])) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colni4/l 5/GFL] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/5] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/6] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/7] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR. VertEle.Cols.Colm4/l 5/8] of PCBS J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) 193 (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/9] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/10] of P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/l 1] of P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/12] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/13] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/14] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/15] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/16] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/17] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) 194 ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/18] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/19] o f P C B S _ V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/15/20] o f P C B S J V A L U E (condition "EQ") (valuel 1.0) (value2 nil)) ([GIA.Tower.SupSTR.VertEle.Cols.Colm4/16] of P C B S D A T A (unit "ft") (locationlist) (attribute_value_list)) ;;;;;;;;; M & R B S Method Statement instances ;;;;;;; ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang/1] of M R B S J V A L U E (unit "sffh") (condition "EQ") (valuel 35.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang/2] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "No.") (condition "EQ") (valuel 30.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang/3] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 50.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang/4] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") 195 (condition "EQ") (valuel 30.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang/5] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "fihr") (condition "EQ") (valuel 8.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol. WGang/6] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "WR") (valuel 2.0) (value2 3.0)) ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/1 ] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "sfth") (condition "EQ") (valuel 35.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol. WGang. WGC/2] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "No.") (condition "EQ") (valuel 30.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/3] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 50.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol. WGang. WGC/4] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 30.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol. WGang. WGC/5] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "fthr") (condition "EQ") (valuel 8.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.FormCol.WGang.WGC/6] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "WR") (valuel 2.0) (value2 3.0)) ([ROOT.FormCol. WGang.FCrew/1] of M R B S J V A L U E (unit "No.") (condition "EQ") (valuel 7.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/1 ] of M R B S J V A L U E (unit "Tnh") (condition "EQ") (valuel 0.125) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/2] of M R B S J V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 60.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/3] of M R B S J V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 60.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/4] of MRBS J V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 20.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab/5] of M R B S J V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 1200.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.RebarCol.PreFab.RCrew/1] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "No.") (condition "EQ") (valuel 8.0) 197 (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/1] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "yd3/hr") (condition "EQ") (valuel 45.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/2] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 38.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/3] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 15.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/4] of M R B S_V A L U E (unit "ft2") (condition "EQ") (valuel 570.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck/5] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "in") (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/1] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "yd3/hr") (condition "EQ") (valuel 45.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/2] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 246.75) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/3] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit nil) (condition "EQ") (valuel 290.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/4] of M R B S V A L U E (unit nil) (condition "EQ") (valuel 90.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/5] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 229.5) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/6] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "lb") (condition "EQ") (valuel 17600.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/7] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "lb") (condition "EQ") (valuel 6800.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/8] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 38.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/9] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft") (condition "EQ") (valuel 15.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/10] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "ft2") (condition "EQ") (valuel 570.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Crane/11] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "in") (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/1] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "yd3") (condition "EQ") (valuel 4.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/2] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "in") (condition "EQ") (valuel 80.0) (value2nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/3] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "in") (condition "EQ") (valuel 72.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/4] of M R B S _ V A L U E (unit "in") (condition "EQ") (valuel 68.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.Bucket/5] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "lb") (condition "EQ") (valuel 570.0) (value2 nil)) ([ROOT.ConcCol.CrBuck.CCrew/1] of M R B S V A L U E (unit "No.") (condition "EQ") (valuel 8.0) (value2 nil)) 200 APPENDIX - D Examples of Method Statement Rules Exported to the CLIPS Environment (Excerpted from Method Statement Rule File) 201 a E e o s-•'> e 0H HH -J u JS -a <u o a u [/> "3 a CU S cu (75 C/3 o cu CU a S x 2 *-3 a cu a a. < o g H ^ to e o CJ CD I i -4—» o ca ii CD 00 CD CO •c p: CD CD t3 73 O •S O O o m *-* CD OH CD CD co W CD " M CD 73 •a CD O CD 00 CD -*-» & X3 OO & CJ "OH o CO CD CD co 00 Pi CD GO 73 c cd C CD e o o U PI CD o, o A o o o in P3 8 j> PI OH CD CD co CD » a CD 73 73 w CD 1 •8 CN co CD 00 CD -JP CJ &0 & I—) CJ "a , o -4—> M CO CD CD CO &0 Pi CD 00 T3 c3 PI CD s pt O o U PI CD & , O A o O o in C2 CD Pi CD OH CD CD co CD £ c3 CD 73 73 w IX, CD +-» CD >-, O Pi o CD m CO CD O0 C O CD CD -*—» & XJ CJ GO CJ ' p t , o +-» M CO CD CD CO 1 CO &0 PI CD 00 T3 u C CD A pt o O o o g in CD CJ nc CD ipen hree (sali o oo CD frule eclar CD 3 o PI o g » co PI o CJ CD u o g -*-» CO )-, CD 00 CD co •c 4 3 PI CD s CD taC/3 CD o 73 CD t3 >-, CD PI CD GO -e O OH CD taj CD J=| 4 - » co CO 'J3 H CD co -*-» PI CD PI O I o o CjO CQ CJ OH l_ «s co 73 O -X3 ^4-» o 9 ° <2 -4—> Pi O P3 •c .OH CJ A 202 c o a o S3 o CO S3 O U CD =3 -*-» O o o CD CJ c CD ^ 2 _ ccs c§ _) CD T3 C O t-l CD oo CD CO •a g s CD T j ts ° - t -» 00 w O CD •s « CD O ? t o ° ig o » m is u 00 ^ co 2 o P4 ^ CD _W CD = P H g -s S P H 3 o o •a 3> A O o CD o a m CD CD -J* 2 3^ 00 oj OJ Td T3 ~—' CO 1-H CD C H 00 CD co •c 43 60 a> g 00 <4H CJ OJ CO ^ CD fe C £ a T3 _ CD fe C3 o <D 00 S3 OQ CD p; too U « P H P H T3 OJ O 43 43 OJ CD «J CJ cci 43 H CD OJ ' « » § 2 S3 o o $3 o o C T l '£ & A o o U a <D S3 o I o CJ 00 «2 m bO S3 P H S3 CD T3 O O O 43 O 03 CD O crj co co -g co .£2 fe "cS & -s 43 0> CJ >H CD M CO ™ ts 43 e CD h-1 CD O C3 a, oo CD 60 nS o , -*-> 00 ! •s o c<3 -4—» o P H > f CO O CD o = O T3 OJ CD 00 ^ o _ CJ 3 O P-o ° l co 43 O CD c3 "S f & I ccS _H 3 O CD 3 43 •a X cci _r «^ «A XI 43 "Bb "Bb S3 S3 CD CD cr cr CD CD C O CO CD 0) 203 !±3 <+-< ca o -Td l-c '3 cr CD 60 A CD CD CD o cd O OH o- CO CD CD Td 60 O cd 3 cS O - t -» — ^ cd I CN CD cd 1-3 CD £ CO s f CD J3 fl ca o w OH o co -< "HI >: 43 » So£ « fl M CD * ' CD 43 > ca —:i I 2 fi la X 4_ "Bo 60 c c CD CD cr cr CD CD CO co CD CD o Td c CD O CO CD Td o --4—» A CD fl O I o CD Td o o CN o CD .fl Td CO fl 2? CD CO CD CD CO Td Td o W CN-o Td ' o o OH N_' •a = O CO co rr CD O ^ cr - CD CD - Td ^ O ^ O r o co CD O a-o a cj ™ 3-I O co CD o (-I O H—» CO CD co CD 42 s a 5 v & Td o CD T—< c3 60 Td fl CD - t - 1 O CD -S Td fl CD = S ca H _>oo « 9* <3 oo fl = o cr C H CD o fl CO N—' <** -»-> CJ CO S CD 3 w CD & CD la > CD 60 CD la -4—* 42 -4—* -4—» a • CD CD C/3 CO = A ca /-£ s CD > CO ^i, W CD —< 60 W (N -—- CN- CN-Td Td T-. fl fl ca CD CD CN-co^  c^o^  II A ca ca w CN. CN. -g Td Td A fl fl w 42 43 Jtn 204 co CD u 1 3 el CD o CO , , o> 1 3 r-H c^ - o CO P & S i 3 P ^ -2 « &1 ° § .& o, a o +2 co p tu Is el co *0 CD O 3 £ / - ^ CD CO "—' <D ^ O ,—i CN. ^ CO el CD CD c el 3 O O -11 s i 2 p CN CD T3 O O CN-m oo el •c CO u a CD -1 3 CT1 O CD CD ^ CN-<D ^ 1 3 CD o -a / v CN-in cd 00 CI _ a ?2 to CD . i 3 X) CN- 3 CD V> cd co CD CD CD O s CI o I o _ O I l l 00 a = 1 3 O 1 3 I c3 CO >•—' X3 ^ >-H co P CD CI cd i 3 P CD CD CO CD 1 3 <N-R" CD P O I o CJ. CD co O CD co >rt 1 3 o W <N-'Z? <D O 1 3 ' O CD CD 1 3 O CJ CN-co CI CD - C 1 3 -P o et • it CO » •d ~ o S o -a U CD CD 1 3 o ^ CJ C O CD CO CD CJ u CN-el CD p o PH ° § J 3 Q p CD CI o PH o _ CD 1 3 -rt O O O o p S oo -a P CD -*-» O ? 1 3 ^ tD = s * cd H PH CD GO s s 2 o CO CD co 3 3 ci 2. « PH CD o ^ CJ I IvS co — J 3 +i 2 « CD " s CO VH CD & CO CO H^ CO ' * CD CO Ci J O U CD CH-H CO CJ CD -X3 o p o 1 3 C o o CD > o CD 1 3 O o o-CD 1 3 O o 1 3 P CD CJ co CD 1 3 CN-CD i p op '53 cd % cd CN-CN ^ |i CN- CD —, - P cd CD ~* ^ g § Zls CD cd H—• Cd CN-CO CO CD CD CN-&^ CO CD =S «•£ S 3 o PH O - P CJ co CD Id i 3 cd "cd CN. C>-. &e GO - P X 3 e e CD CD CT* CT* CD CD co co CD CD 205 CN CO cO = > 43 ^ CN £ "Bbfj CD CN CD CD 43 CO "2 ^ CO ^ 1 S '3 3 to CN- o-kp, 43 43 "Bo "Bo C S3 CD CD co co CD CD 43 |bfi CD CD 4H 43 "co lo > > I I » -+-» CD CD ao ao CD1 lo O >, to "43 CD _ l n •s -c 'C to _H CD | - » fl cr I CD CD co 3 § O CO O J> *-< CD -4. 00 W _ 00 ^ r-1 CO CO CN-Td CD S3 co <D W co _i ts .s CD ^ oo : s CN ^ ' r t — ^ Si ~' T2 CD > co W CD -< 60 CD J 3 lo > i CD 60 CD jfl lo > i +-» CD 00 fl 43 CO CO C D 1 ^ fl 43 •q A 43 H—» CO i -*-> CD 00 CO i •*-> CD 00 —< £ H CO > CN-fl CD CO CO > CN-Td C CD CO O - ^ CD i i n co CO CN-6 ^ ci A «/5* «^ <_ J3 43 43 co ^ "fl "fl 5 oo 3 _> c^ i u "d T3 "O ^ O S3 fl C O X co co co CD 5 fl S T J ^ <rj CD 43 cO cO cO i-< CN- CN- (N- O- <N-Td Td Td Td Td fl C fl fl fl 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Td fl CD co O cr S3 cO fl —4 CO 43 TT"* CN-Td c CN-A^ JD 43 fl CO CD CN-cn w cr CD CO W CN- • _ . A W 42 <+-i fl CD +^  <D co fl CD CN-Td fl £ CD _ CN 43 ^3 CO = <£ <>. fl - f l Td fl ca 206 l-l o ex o CD -4—* cd a CO O CD o CD X ) H cd CN-o PH <D •3 cd 5 CN-I f CN- CD CD 1 3 CD cd co CD CD X J CN- IN-CD C co 5 <1> Cd ^ C 3 w xi c '£ S 3 o OH s o o co1 CD 3 t: ^ £ CN- Js _, 00 £ r / i CD £ CD « 1 " 00 c CD cd cd i3 >C > cd ~ CD C D ' X •a cd cd 5 CN- CN-rP &e «A •a ^ x cd "£3 'JS w 00 00 c c CD CD CD CD co co CD CD cd 9 - -CN- CD ^ S " 3 cd > CD ^ cd CN-&e e BO OT — S3 CD - ' CD • 2*3=: "S cd cd 5 CN- CN-rg &e &e * i X J cd *J3 J3 ' w 00 00 Ol c CD CD CD CD CO CO CD CD A 207 2 2 13 13 <a *a >» +J +-» OH OH a a CD CD c c CD CD 1- kH o u 3 o OH <HH o _CD \ cd •—N VH CO CD o ^ CD 00 , cd <D > J3 "cd T3 > S3 CD CD w 00 ee &e CD CD Id Id CD CD H-» -*-» CO CO CN? CN*-&e &e T3 a a '-3 '-S X cd •So > CD T3 X C3 CD co M 3 S CN- CN- CN-T3 T3 "d a a a IS 3 rS. CD J 3 Id > CD 00 CD 3 pi X J s "Ed I H^ CD 00 cd > CN-T3 C CD co CN? C *H—» cd o o CD 00 cd > CN--a C CD CO 3 ee J3 &e CD C cd o o CD 00 cd > CN-CD CO cd &e 43 CN —i H—» -*-^  CO CO &e u _ !-H / v &e CD ,5? « .2 a .2 -S £ 53 T5 CN- H-» CN-&e CN-T 3 T 3 T 3 S c c £ , 3 "JD j3 ^ 5 2 2 CD H X co ,5 cd v—' CN-o o ° —1 A a a - c -" a ^ -o § A d d CD ' "HS CD CD CO VH o CN CD co CD •o CN-l-l CD '3 CO H—» ~ O co S3 53 co O r "id CD - O co cd & T3 £ 2 T3 O 43 CD CD -d H .2 £ •-H CD O CD CN-T3 d JD T3 d 3 cr CD 2 o e g o Tl U c" & I £ o 53 a -g cr ~ CD ^ CO b ;d CO <^ ' s 3 n ^ = CD £ CN-o CN O co CD 13 CN-CO £3 O o o X ) T3 cd CD ' p '3 CO <-j< CO CD = CD r J3 o .a co H CD +3 T3 ^ 2 " cr CD CD Ct cr CD £ 3 In H O o = OH «*I E CD = i l l H - Jd cd 3 O *J O " <H-H -4—> FO 208 Td C CD o CO CJ Td o-a CD a o I o CJ. CJ Td O o CN _ o co 00 Td T 1 fl T O X) ~ =5 OH « •c ^ O co S o Td U fl CJ s JD 13 fl | o U .fl 'o cd OH CO M CO c2 CD CD fl •8 I CJ § " h i CD CO CJ CD co Td Td o a> O Td CD CJ _ g ^ ca o CN' T cr CD CD Td o ^ CD cn CD CD o l OH ^ B g § I o CO CD CJ u X! H fl CD fl O OH co CD CO CJ X> S £ - S 3 a oo Td fl CD +^  O «> Td fl CD -S 2 H £,oo *- 2-CD O0 C = o cr fln CD fi M o cd CN-o CO CD -a CN-fl o '-+—» OH •a CJ CO T3 £H X 'cd CD Td o o = CN- 00 CD .S T3 o O cd O OH X oo - "S CD Cd Td r1 CD Td O cd CO CD CD rjTd 13 C N - CN-CD S CO Cd -*-» C fl fl£ o OH a o C3 cd CN-Cd ^ CD > cd cd > CN- _ " S i CD cd -fl c v -> 6^  CN-CD V fl O CD "cd Td" X 313 13) cd 13 CN- CN-Vs Vt &e v> •fl Xj "So ob fl fl CD CD co X> CJ cr cr CD CJ CO CO CD CD cd 13 CN-fee "oo ^ fl ^ cd o cd _ & £ " OO cd CN-{-I CN „ "cd J D ^ £ —c CD XI I ? " 1.2 CD fee CD Td o o CN-(-H O cd c CD fl O OH CO CD 35 x> CO CD 13 >. Td £ N cd O X! £ -2 cd > &! X 3 tbxj £ fl O CD Td W cd f j 13 CN- N-&e &e oe XI X! JD J  g O «! X) •a -a cd cd w ^ 00 00 fl fl CD CD cr cr CD CD co co CD CD A 209 210 73 O 43 -4-» £ o <2 o <+H o co cd <H—1 13 O o <H-H o o <2 t-i CD a CO 4xj o CD 43 CD CD 43 H CN I 73 C CD O CO CD 13 CN-•s CD S3 O OH o CD. co 13 CD S3 13 « O ^ CD M CN-CD ^ 13 CD o co N ^ . ^ CO CN O 13 O CD CN-CD CD S3 M CD « ao O CN- •!-! & CD - » § 6 * CD 3 S -2 0 = to CD £ <^  g 6 CD o H^ M O -o u, cr " co'3 3 -e ~ (H H w CD co S-H CD & co X CD CO S3 O U CD 43 co M o CD 43 CD Pi O 13 Pi O CD CD > O 3 CD CO CD 13 CN-Pi o cd -4—» cd CN-O H - * •c S CO > CD £ 73 g X O o cd H^ CN-&e CD S 73 Cd S <N- U —1 O o X <u ? 6 Cd C—i 73 r1 o CD 73 o cd co CD CD _E2 13 1 3 <>• o -CD & S CO Cd -*-» Pi S 3'HS S 3 O OH O 43 O 3 N- CD ^ 73 43 -2 cd SI CD cd p. ^ ^ &e a o ^ CD CN- t3 fee " CO CD B X cd 73 > | 8 S3 to Pi CD cd T£J cd td CN- CN-&e &e &e fee 43 43 ao "So PI PI CD CD cr cr CD CD co co CD CD CD CO CD 73 CN-Pi ^ o rpl OH td 'C <N- £5 o &e -co _ _ CD ."73 X * 3 £ wo PI cd cd CN-ps &e C/CN CD 73 O CD CN-CD 73 O o u 13 PI CD O CO CD 73 CN-CD Pi O 73 cd CD 13 CN-&e CO CD cd > CN-73 cd CD 43 & CN-fee CO CD 3 Id 43 3 3 £ pt '43 _ •g -c -c pi 3 3 o OH o 43 O 3 211 < * H CD id cd CD 43 > cd o-oe cd » cd oe 4= w CD 1 = CO cd "§ cd oe oe oe oe 43 43 GO ao S3 S3 <U CD cr cr CD CD CO CO ._. CD CD S3 CN '3 oe CN CD 73 O o o-CD 73 o O o -*-> co CD CD u S3 _o '-*-» CD 13 73 O i-i PH C M O CD -5 & CN 73 cd CD o CD oe S CO § 1 ? ! CD JS S3 cd O w S3 o CD I co cd > cd o-oe CO Id > CN 73 cd CD 43 Ed »• oe co CD 3 cd >, CD -*-» 43 > CN ^ 73 ^ S 2 & J 43 ^ S3 •S a C« 45 CN X CN "cd 43 . cd cd oe oe oe oe 43 43 + H <4-> GO GO S3 <3 CD CD cr cr CD CD CO CO CD CD cd ' "I O- CD CO CN C cd cd cd CD ™ X oe o. > ^ oe £ to* oe S3 C O CD CD & 2 l i s 8 CD'I 3 •a -a *« ca cd CD cr cr CD CD CO CO CD CD S3 O CD o Id 212 fl o •-3 o o «+--» TH o o <4H o o CD 00 cd > CN-T d A CD CO 13 °-o o 3 CN*-fee c CD 00 cd > CN-53 CD CO &e &e CN- CD s ^ . CC3 ^ a .2 &e +3 T d T3 A C 3 -4-< CN-CN- &e CD T! .-2 T d c CN o cn CD T d CN-O g X> fl cd T d .-fl O .2 'S = CD ^ 13; o CO CD T d CN-60 o fl <+H -2 CD >- co - . ^ -° ~ 2 CD &e CD a x> is |? S fl W O P fl S > o i E CD o cgfJ O •<-* fl -fl > o = = fl ctt g 8*3 I P H fl CD C o OH a o CD 00 T d O XI 4—» a c o U P H T d T d O XI » <D a CD •a C+H CD IH OH c3 X) CD Pi CD cfi cd co OH « co -g CD X) co -fl g 13 A co 5 -g £ <D 00 2 | co ™ H x> CD CO C O. o «' o '•i o •a s CH CD IH cd X) CD AH O CD XI o cd OH CO J CD CD T d 13 CN-&e XI to fl CD H J CD % • OH : oo " fl o CD •a •§ fe c3 X) CD . P P * CD = o -o <D CD 00 ^ Xj A H cd I CN-fee 13 T d O cd o CD ^ > cd cd f CN-6e CN- ^ -fee ao-fj CD ,2 fl ^ CD cd CD X! > cd cd &e - &e 1 8 O - H J o fl w ^ 8 3 o OH o ° l CO X) CD OH cd T d > cd "S cd cd fl CN- CN-xj &e 6e ci Xi X! w "So "So c c CD CD cr cr CD CD CO CO CD CD cd 13 CN-&e XI H—* 13 CD CD cd OH 00 c o '"3 CD •a •S fe X) CD cd H—» Cd CN* &e o CN ^ 11 CN- CD -Cd &e cd fee o -o CD CD cd CD XI &0 Xj g ^° ^ g CN-&e E« CN. - &e •8 «> o ^ o fl w ^ flS o OH CD fl ^ x! - H cd -TO UH > cd - H CD'^3 fl cd cd fl (N. f>. f> fee &e &e fee XI X! a o °l co X> CD 3 CCJ H-» H-» W &0 00 fl fl CD CD cr cr CD CD CO co CD CD 213 fl CD O co CD T3 r>. ti CD C o t o fl £ N CD >—i CD CD co T3 -2 © T3 o w CN-_CD O T3 co CD O CO CD o u fl CD C o OH s g § § CD CO o -a 8 § A § 3 AH r s CO CD co CD XI C CD 5 3 CN CD *o O o CN «-! « CD C T3 n Mi OH " ' •n = CD co S O 3 U CN" cr CD CD •73 O ^ O ,—i CN- CD CD "2 T 3 O o T3 fl F, 'C CD CD cp CD X> " O fl CD t oo o cr OH CD T3 I S 73 M CD (H fl -4—» CD co kH CD OH fl CO CD CO fl B fl O U CD X I -+-» <+H • CO M o CD X I o fl o T 3 fl O CD CD > O CN CN '3 '3 o CO CN O-o &e Td -£ -a CO CN-&e CD CD T3 o § 3 fl CD o co CD -o CN T3 CO CD •9 CN-CD V) S CO Ctf H—> C fl I T S S 3 o I o »' x> o CN T 3 CO CD X I CN-&e CN-X I ^ "So xj g So <« " s CD CN '3 x; CN CO -O > CO CD CD XI . •fl CO CO fl CN- CN-Xj &e &e •g x) xi w "So "So c fl CD CD cr cr CD CD CN ^ -2. 3 > to cO CD co co CD CD fl CO CD •c P H CD T3 O X I -+-» a CD $ co cO XI c o s -CD OH o <HH CO CD CD X I CD fl O fl o CD CD > O m '3 "3 CN-fee T3 CD )H ' f l CT CD X I to a CD J , CD H—* o o^ ^ fl •S .2 CD o V. « O pL, C Q '3 CN-CO in ro o cO T3 CD CD PH 1 T 3 fl CD CD co CD T 3 CN-CO m T 3 CO CD •s o-CD &e CO I C CD fl O OH S o CD. cn o 7 3 ^ CD Q XI XI ^ . "SOX! &e fl 00 M H c CD O CD I CD ' f l CD 1 ^ ,3 •fl c0 cO A CN* CN" Xj 6e &e -4—t C/i •fl XI XI w oo ob fl fl CD CD cr cr CD CD co co CD CD 214 to cd •+-> CN-Oe f P CD cd "3 CN-Oe Oe 43 ao S3 CD cr CD CO CD ccj CD ;—' CD 2 in x > *S 2 I CD "3 CD'43 .2 +i (3 ca 2 CN- <N-43 oe •S 43 43 cd rJ3 J3 W OO OO S3 S3 CD CD cr cr CD CD CO CO CD CD •a, CD 4 3 CD J3 "cd > • -+-» CD 0 0 CD J3 "cd >. -P CD S3 O » cd o o 3 43 •c Id S3 3 CD CD CD CD cd cd S3, PH CO CO p p O O '-3 o o •c -a 3 3 42 42 CD CD J-l S-C CD CD CD CD J3 3 "c3 "cd > > I I -4—» -*—» CD CD 0 0 0 0 .22 -22 *o 45 45 CD ^3 CD CD -p .a •2 -3 cr pi cd cd CD CD CD1 ^ 4 3 a a GO +s a a c 13 43 43 CD i C '£ V, J ^ 73 CD l-H 'a cr CD cd cd CD 0 0 cd > CN-13 P CD CO oe 4 3 _ "So c CD 13 w P CD X co CD I S CD GO oo cn "B _ cd g cd > CD ^ CN- J C ^ -13 ^ 13 CD GO CN "cd -> • CN-CD CD CD +-* H—» H—» bo bo co cd T3 CD w 6 w 43 3 43 -*—» H—» •3 M 3" 73 p CD co CD 8 ? CO ^i, W CD T-H 0 0 oe t^" •a cd p > O- CN. 73 73 p p CD CD CO CO CD CD a j3 "cd I cn t-~ i—i CN cd cd cd cd cd CN- C N - C N - CN- C N -CD CD 0 0 0 0 <n vo "cd "cd > > IN- CN- ^ 73 73 X p P 2 CD CO P co co 45 i n H cd cd " CN- CN- CN-CD "cd > i H—» CD 0 0 CD 3 "cd >. a 43 'B id • H^ CD GO cd > CN-73 p CD CO oe 4 3 cd CN-£ C N -cn cd C N -ci A * ^ ""O ""O '"O * 0 ""O ""O ""O ""O p p p p p p p p p p 43 3 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 ,A, CD 43 73 p CD CO CN-73 P 43.^. _ 73 £ cS *. a cd CD 6 £ CN-V 73 P CD CD K co CD • 73 X »• cd = W 73 :s o • - 43 "53 "o -t-1 60 co 0 0 P U P CD 73 CD J Hi cn ^ H C N - " £ la o- cd + "S " ' l-H w P -—H cd p I t *i CD O 4 3 CD = CD ' cd 73 PH O CO 43 -*-» P CD •2 £ cd CD CD o cd PH co a o cd CD CD L L , CD .a H -a CO cd CO p 43 p O g O a : o • •*-» a •c a CD co 215 cd oe o fl H cz: ££j 14 -1 X« C J fl 15 o i= co T; C J = o ^ r ' fl = * ^ i l ^ ^ ^ A r <3 R M > - CJ ^ cd W cd CJ CJ CJ o co CJ T3 CN 13 O XI CJ XI H Cd CN. CL) = O ' CO T3 CX O CJ CJ cd 00 CJ C cd O •c cj CO C o fl • o : fl •c CD cd x< O r T CJ Is • -cd co X> fl P O fl o ^ f l * J p O XI fl ' ' fl •c p CO T3 *P C a «' o o •n Ci-H p >-? cd X) CJ l-l ,o p 6 0 cd M CJ CJ X! o P 1 o cd PH CO P 1 H-» CO CJ T3 216 "Oj-<u T3 O o O-00 43 fl co PH CD c r co CO CD T3 O o o-oo 00 fl •c 43 fl CO O u •s cr co CO CO "3 13 CN-&e 13 (U CN CO CN -*—• -+—• ccS cO &e &e &e oe 43 fl cr cr CD CD CO CO CD CD CD X ! CD J3 > i -*-> CD 00 CD fl >-< CO O >, CO - 3 CD I -H .§£ o CO -M 00 CD oo J2 CO CO CN-T3 CD fl J*>. CD w CO , _ , 6e 3b fl CD - O ^ fl CD C/3 43 3b fl CD CD CD CO OH CO CD 00 CO cO 42 CD )H CD CD fD fl - f l ^ 2-cr H-> >H U _«H to CD 43 l-l CD I CD CD 43 % > CD 00 •a * fl *H ••° -2 "EH CO CO O i i CD 00 HJ <^ & A ^ CD h-i CO 3 CD s fl 43 CO « ^ :s fl CD cO CO CN. CN-CD H—» CO CD J3 > i H—I CD 00 CO > fl CO 5 g co 43 " ' CN-CO " CN- CN-CD l o > I H—» CD 00 CD J3 l o a 43 •c -4-» T H—» CD 00 CO >CN-T3 C CD CO 3 fee 43 A i3 «3 *0 *"0 *0 ""O *o fl fl fl fl fi fl 43 43 43 43 43 43 TO fl CD _ V CO O w _ ^ 00 n co t>. CN-T3 fl •3 43 00 CO CN-X CO T3 fl 43 A CN- _ H V fl CD 43 T3 fl cO CN-X cO CN-CN-3 CO CN* T3 C C ^ CO l o CN-A 43 CD M CH TH o H CM fl "C .2 « o <~ o CO = CD - " c 0 ^ 43 CN HH> O O co S r-o = T3 ' M i r £ CtH —H TH o o CM C CD ' o cfl CM fl CO CO cO 43 CN CD CO CD T3 CN-c2 O CO CD T3 CN-43 CD 3b S C T3 CD CN-= H-l = CD >• 7 3 a -o 43 +-» 00 c CD hJ CD - cj O CO g £0 ^ 2 OH « w fl w CD nj 2 2 CD ff l _0 43 : W h W r 2 CD fl 'Lo o --4—* -fl •c OH CD 00 CO M o 3 « 3 43 yi 43 CD PH CD 3 ^ p4 cO 43 CD fl co O = fl CD A3 CD fl a CD CO 217 o « ' ca o •c CiH CO l-l co <2 CD1 13 S3 CD o co CD 13 C N --4—» S3 CD c o ft O O S3 CD C O CD 55 TJ CD O "O o o-/—v CD ° I CO v — • CD ^ § s CD c co CD CO O CN. Is co CD CD O u l-H o CO CD CD O O CN-co M •S ? 5 3 -4^  -Cu 43 •C rca co fa CO CD CD I-3 PH ^ cr • CD CD "a w ^ CD 12 ° O O oo 5 6 0 -3 -g G 5 CD co ° A CO 43 CD 3 13 co <N. ^ CD E_ s ° 3 a s ^ pr CD O T3 • CD CJ I I ca • CO •>—' 43 <-> l-H CO e ^ o CD •c fa CD 13 o 43 CD 43 -4—» co C3 43 S3 O '-4-> ca CD OH o <H-I CO 44 CD CD 43 CD S3 O 13 S3 O CD CD > O CD T 3 CD kH CD £3 43 CD l-i CO ca 43 13 O 43 H-» CD  43 co M co CD 43 CD S3 o 13 S3 O CD CD > O ca oe 13 43 , , CD CN P i CD 13 O o <N-CD 13 o CD ca H—» > ca o-oo ca l-l fa CD S3 -a F a ' CD 13 o ca CO CD CD 43 13 c3 CN* CD &e S CO CC} H—I C 3 w 4 3 o OH E o ° l co 43 O 3 fN- CD 13 43 -2 ca < H-* CD ca > -a £^  ca > oe C N . ca rn oe C N - 13 _, oe oo£ co C bb CD S3 CD ca 43 ca CD 43 ca CN-ca CN-ca ^ oe oe oe oe is ^ ob "Bb C S3 CD CD cr cr CD CD CO CO CD CD CN CD 13 o CD CN-CD 13 O CD 13 S3 CD CD CO CD 13 w CN-CD 'c3 S •*-» a (3 CD (3 O OH a o CD J 43 CD 3 218 •8 pi c2 CD ca fa CD a =3 a 43 CD Oil CD CD l a l a > > i i H—» H-* CD CD 60 00 (-4 o CN o co CD 13 CN-ca ; _ * -a C N . ca r l CN-3 <N ca T 3 • £ rt CD CD CD CO •a j s s CO CD CD -4—» -4-» 3 3 i 3 ca CD 43 C N -oo o-43 ob^ a S3 ^° w CD 13 ca CD •9 C N -ca - M ca C N -ca ca as as oe oe oe oe 43 43 4-» H-> (30 (30 a a CD CD cT O " CD CD co co CD CD CN 'ca ta ^ CN- -—s OO JN 8 | ' P ^ fa ° C+H 3 o "S i3 § P< 13 = S3 " 13 CD 13 -a CD OO a co CD a S3 ca o w PH a o ° l co 1 ca I CN-oe m l a > CN-CN 13 ca CD 43 > ca CN-OO CO CD _3 "ca > CD a CN 13 ca CD CN 1—H • i-H cd -4—* > YA. OO C N . 43 ^ ^ 5b a O CD cd ca CD '1 ca . . ca CN- N-w w ' • 43 43 ca 00 &o a a CD CD cr cr CD CD CO CO CD CD "P 1 1 —^ CN- CD CO a ca •9 £ ca CD ca 43 oe C N -oe a CD CD -a cn x •S ca ca a CN- (N. ca r M r^ -t ob "oo CD cr cr CD CD co co CD CD " P co r 1 a o a V. * s a Pt, CD <+-< a ca 42 P H U 2< CD P 00 p CD : « : ^ \f3 oo ^ ^ (Tl u > U CN-~ -o " P CD _ co CD CD 43 43 "ca l a > > i i H-» H—» CD CD 00 00 ca > C N -&e oe £2 £ 43 l a ^ ob > g M < N -5 S 13 ' O P _H CD £3 ^ co ca v—' 43 g rn CN- 43 ca oe C N - C N -" P *C) * P a a a '43, IS. '43 '43.IS CD CD 3 j3 l a l a > l > l CO <u -4-» -4-* a a 43 43 -B'B H—» -4-» ca ca +-» H—» CD CD 00 00 ~ £H l a l a > > CN- C^ -13 13 a a CD CD CO CO <2 CD 1 O a CO S ca a - 1 oe 43 -+-» 13 P CD CO -a p CD CO C N - CN-13 13 p p 43 PH ca l-  — CN-A CD  CN-13 a -a oe ^L-•a rr t i CN P ca S — ' C N -*a ^ p w CD -™H 3 V CN- A a o = P ^H O CD co o CD 3 13 -rt r- 2 PH •g ° 43 • as H-J • CD ca - c« Q O "r? u fa co I 3 2 8 43 a = o a •a 3 a CD 43 219 C O co CN-CN CO CN-CD >-< CD C H CN CD 6 0 cd co fl CD O &• o C O CD H T j CD •a CO CD CD fl c2 H CD < H CD 6 0 cO > C N -T 3 fl CD CO CD w C o 35 o o CD 6 0 CD , — CO = . > = C N --52 CD O £ ^ 8 ^ 3 a CN? fee fl C N -CD to CD H o H fl &f l O cd -fl fl C N - o = S « ~ C N - T 3 ^ T 3 fl C N -a ^ CD -2 T3 CD fl fl o CN CD CO -CD " T 3 fl z *-H - - o O 7 3 C H O „^ >H CD fx, 3 C H CO O -H • f l CD ^ 3 - M ' •> co CO C H CO * H • H 0 0 CD = fl C H ^ 'E ~ ~H rM O O - H = C O C O _ • _CD fl -T 3 O — 1 CN- CD CD fl H CD CO fl CD C O T3 o fl fl C N &e a -e CO S H fl CD H .1 ° .2 £ g rS W O .fl CO O H H a "G I a ^ - A C T CD CD fl T3 o fl -H CD fl CD fl O O H a o a ° 0 0 U P H CD >H O fl fl T 3 CD u a £ 1 CD CO co O H « M fl CD X ) • H ^ C O fl fe "co eg ~ CO fl f j S CD OO 2 | co «2 H fl . S C O cS t j H <D co CD Q o CD CD o fl PQ CD u T 3 O fl a CD fl - H CO CO fl C o 'is M CD O H O C H CO M CD CD fl CD fl O T 3 fl o CD CD > O 3 cO to C N -fee fl 3b fl CD M H CD CD CO O H 0 0 6 0 fl 3 • P P H CD = o T 3 |-> S CD CD 0 0 ,5 ~ fee O H o fl fl-B S 3 o O H a o fl CD a 220 oo fl co H J CD 3 PH fl I P H CD 13 > i H—» CD 00 CD :< -4—» fl X> •c -4—> CO i » CD 00 cO > fl CD co -fl T 3 C CD CO CO T3 C A 221 •a o OH CO 00 a 1 P H P • I *^  • Jr, 13 • *• : ~ * - a 2 o a - a . a u cr a a oo ca cr g, ^ « g 5 * ^ - a oL a ^ « I B !s p ra D CD CD > CD O CD "l cd cd co o ' ft ft ft •a co oo oo S 00 00 00 ^ a e a a -5 -3 3 ? & S3 £ -£ P H P H P H w> :s ::: :^ CN ^ H rM^ r-H r C CD CD CD H cd s > > > JJ1J H—> H—> H—> ^ CD CD CD 00 00 00 (A m v i ^ T3 13 Id Id <2 a > > > £ O C N - O - C N - L T3 T l T ) T ) . . rrt S3 a a d o (5! CD CD CD CD ^ „ co co co co ft || y ^ t5 "3 § w C U t U C U -4—* o- o- o- o- o- o T 3 ^ ^ * 0 C3 C fi 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 00 a CD S- l CD CD cd ft CO 00 a cd P H <+H s M - H a CO CD % 43 -*—> O S3 O 13 O co CD •o CN-a o CD O CD -a -a O CO -a =, CD J CD V ! - i CO 4H O co ^ a o> ^ ft o ^ S ° -2 «» S -j-i - e>. f o H N L_ a cd cd - S - c II 43 -4—» CD o cd ft CO 00 a 1 P H C M TH o M S3 CD CD sa 5H a C O CD > cd 43 ,—N ! , /"™-\ <+H O < M TH a T3 o C O CD C M CD < M TH O TH CD 13 O CD co CD 13 CN-— & T 3 M 4> cd •a ^ o -E | 2 a CN .o- o cd cd C N -en cd C N -cd CD % CD O cd ft CO 00 a 1 P H < M TH o a CD o C M - — -a W C M CD T2 > " Cd C M -a T! M O o a = co _ • CD -2 C 13 O >- '3 CD H O o C O CD CD +-> •a C N -ft 'cd S A a CD 43 O C M *2 a 1 . S - c a CD • 43 ' 13 ii .5 3e o a < M CO cd 13 = 2 a - a 43 H * = CO P CD fa CO CD H—» — m cd CN-"cd <N-CN O co CD 13 C N -a ' M cd M CD ft O l-H CD / - ^ CO i v U < M ^ TH E C M ^ TH - a ° o =. 43 CD | 8 CD CD 43 H CD a as u ' C D CD e M a O co a co O cd O 43 a o a d 3 o ' & a < M ^ 13 O 43 M CD CD 2 — 4 3 (D u & <u a a o cd CD b co c2 • a d> B CD o cd O P H 13 - a o 43 a- -5 a 4 3 •c CD M o a o CD C M O CD H—» cd S-H ^ a" 8 I 43 p CD M 2 | co « H 4 3 o CD ' cfa a CD CD M ^ 1 a CD B CD CD cd 3 °' M cd s-CD 13 CN 13 a CD CD CO CD 13 CN-a" CD a o ft s o C D . 13 a CD CD CO CD 13 S-H O M CO CD CD u » a CD a o ft a o o J co CD CD u S-H O -*—» co CD CD 222 9 . o. CD CD a CD C O CD CO CO CO CD j§ C O CD 4=1 CO M CD CD 4= CD S3 O » S3 o CD CD > O .-5 co cn I CD M o =3 PQ <*$ CD 1-4 u O 43 +-» CD a CD 43 4—» C O cd 43 S3 O CD OH O C+H CO AH o CD 43 o S3 o 13S3 O CD CD > O cd ta C N -Vi CO CD o CD Cd 33 H CN 'cd t3 Vi "bo . C CD ' J—i O S3 o o •S * O e g CN 'cd s &e o CD CN" H—» T3 S3 CD CD CO CD T3 O -CD i S3 •a n 1*3 C N - CD "3 I CD ca H C N -&o 00 co ?3 CD <g cd fl 4 3 fl3 O OH O o. cd TO > cd I <u CD 43 .43 m h &e Id £ w oo fl CD cr1 CD CD S° CH^ CD 55 a o . cd ^ fl 43 CD 3jb 8 fl CD CD T3 w CN-H " CD 'cd S c5 S3 fl &e S3 43 43 P "fl o OH a o o 3 <N - A 'c3 CN cd CD •a CN-ee CO CD CD ^ cd 43 Vi CN-> 43 ^ c<3 - f „ r - i CN- 00 43 &e fl bo M -2 fl CD ' CD 43 ST oo S3 CD CO 4 3 CD I cr CD "—" co ' I CD - f l CD '43 5 •fl ca ca fl CN- O -4 3 ee ee ,5 &e m -fl, 43 43 w 3b 3b fl fl CD CD cr cr CD CD CO C O CD CD cd 3J C N -Vi 3 J £ T3 t>- , £ 43 cd 3 CD Vi Vi vi "H 43 43 cd "fl! t3 00 00 S3 fl CD CD cr cr CD CD CO co CD CD A 223 S3 a » CD l - l o S3 o U S3 CD a CD O cd CD 13 ^ S3 C (4_1 O o a a 2 CD O 00 „ i . .> d o : " cd . / — N CD ^ »-H U > 3 : £ "2 CD CD ^ oo -2 ^ 43 cd ^ "Sb > CD g>e- , O CD 13 "—' ^  s -4—* X co cd • a CD CD .3 5 "cd 13 > > I I -4—* •4—' CD CD CD1 CD1 -3 43 Id Id CD CD •4—> -4—* 43 43 •a -a -4—» -4—> Id "cd i i - M CD CD 00 00 "cd Id > > CN- CN-13 13 S3 S3 CD CD CO CO CN- CN-¥ ¥ a a CN- CN-43 43 TH o CD o U-i o CD co o cd CD 43 O co CD 13 I N -<3 CN-• 3 T 3 S3 S3 ^ CD CD C^-CO CO \ CN-&0 13 (3 13 S3 co 43 w C N -CN- CN-13 X3 S3 S3 O *-H CN CD -+-> CN-S3 43 43 43 43 43 CN-A^ CD 43 3 CN- CN-CN' 13 13 13 a a a 43 43 43 1 CN-ro cd CN-A S3 _ 2 S3 o O J3 CO / -. « 3 .22 co "-S •--i cd ^ o CN o co CD 13 CN-CD 00 cd > CN-VH 13 ~ S3 2 «« § CD CD "cd 2 a _ 43 CD ^ H a [4-1 CD ft g — CD ^ CD •*-» CN-CD . o — c &e O 43 ° "3 CD 00 cd > CN-13 S3 CD CO X cd &0 43 CN-&o CD -*-» cd CD l - l o S3 o o O -*-» S3 •c 3 S3 CD 43 a .22 ^ « CNI ^ IN- &<5 ^ 13 i 3 <N-e e = CD CN-'S 13 CD g 43 ^ T: M CD CD < ^ i CD O = CD - -"cd _ 00.22 •c § «^ 13 43 '55 2 S3 <+H 8 ~ o CD = 43 co co 3 cd O Ct-H cd co CD = cd CO -13 o CN- CO = CD = . 13 CN-13 : O LH -*-» i-i CD f O CD 43 H S3 CD a CD • --i ^ 2 (J_, ft CD CD -t-> CD <5 2 & § § CD CD •4—» -• 3 " O B-B ^ 3 3 l 13 O 43 CD M O =S 43 13 S3 cd ft CD S3 S3 O cd CD CD CO 21 CD o cd 13 O 43 43 o, -g 2 a CD a s o cJ3 c^ co **—1 CD o -g 2 43 g CO 5 8 J2 •S 2 CD 60 2 | H 43 4 4 CD CD 43 CD cd 00 CD feb 00 cd c J O CD1 N a CD CD 13 224. IT) •o o o <3 ^ CO .— I s -5 O co •a s O 3 ^ CN* 4 - * | fl3 P £j to I <D _o CO T3 o-P ~ S ai cd f-_ >S oo 5 oo c = o cr OH CD 6 ' o o • f l u CO fl o CD 4—> o g H—» CO kH CD OH fl CO CO CO 'x CD I 00 P fl co AH o CD fl CD C _o •3 A o CD CD > O 3 CD ~ CD AH o fl <*$ CD s kH u •fl o fl H—» CD CD fl H—» CO CO fl fl O • H-» cd kH CD OH O <fH CO A4 CD CD fl CD fl O • f l C o CD CD > O cd Id C N -6 0 " p o M f l co CD cd •§ o 00 cd V C M CD O 7 3 CD cd 8 N > CD . M CN. oo L. , — v 13 tN x fl ji3 fl cd 5 > 12 = b fl , C N . CD T3 co CD K O fl U T3 13 fl CN- c - 15 CD > fl co I fl CD CD fl fl fl w f l fl a - c - a kH H H-» p a a o OH •fl cd CD fl 5 &e cd > cd C N -&e cd O o co1 fl CD fl c Sb c O CD ^ X cd CD fl 13 cd CN. CN-fl fl -4-» -4-» 00 00 fl C CD CD cr cr CD CD CO co CD P cd t3 C N -CD cd cd ± 3 fl O o o CD an, CO CO CD CD A cd CD > J3 • a > C CD CD £J B fl cd « -&> > b § i s a o 5 X CO fl OH co cd v—' o- fl fl g C N ^ § CN- fl cd H -H e>e CN. CN. o- CN. ""O '"O fl C fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl 225 >H o CD 13 > CD 00 CD J3 H-» -3 •a +-» H—» cd i -+-> CD 00 cd > 13 C CD 3 CN O ca CD 13 O CD 15 8 s & -° J2 =. CD +j = ' 3 cd ^ ••H CO -l-i 52 CD cn $ XI -XJ. a o co = "fl —H cd es y H 1) P "CO CD 3^ 3 M 00 r 6i opd-X) £ 13 2 o A fl CD "in w A fl- I s XI CD CD fl XI 13 cd C CN-p _ T—H CN-'S II V 13 s - -•a o r ° . £3 % s a o . a <^ O CD Xj a = ^ o -4—» a •c 3 a (D X ! a o '3 CD O CD 00 cd > CN-13 a CD co 3 S CN? I a CN-V, &e CD "5 CD IH o B .2 « C - « ^ 13 -O a a ^ CD C N -fl 13 CO fl 1-c o 00 a •c CD 13 CO a o CD CD = 13 co .-2 S3 co O cd •rt c« 13 co o v "5 CD = g <N , ? co r- co z 13 >- o-13 = O ~ -XI CD CO X ! H >H <2 CD P H CD +-» CD M o a o o -t—* ^ O ^ "S a •§ CD cu c<3 o 00 o CD C I H oo "C 00 ° 0. CfH CtH IH O CD CD = . N = S _a a s o CD CD 226 APPENDIX - E Method Statement Feasibility Report Files Appendix E Method Statement Feasibility Report Files ;;;;;;; Report for Formwork Methods ;;;;;;;;;;; This is the Report generated for Method Statement - High-rise Superstructure Construction Formwork Methods for PCBS components The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" has sufficient assembly space for operation "Formwork for Slab" at "Site location". The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay A " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay B " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay E" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay D " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay F" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay G " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay H " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay I" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 1. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay A l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay B l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18. 228 The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay C I " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay D l " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 2. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay E l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay F l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 19. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay G l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay H I " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 19. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay J l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 19. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay K l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" for PCBS component "SlabBay L l " is feasible due to sufficient reuses 18. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 13.52 crewhrs at location 3. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 4. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 5. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 6. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 7. 229 The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 8. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 9. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 10. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 11. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 12. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 13. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 14. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 15. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 16. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 17. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 18. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" 230 because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 19. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 20. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 11.96 crewhrs at location 21. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 9.22 crewhrs at location 22. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 9.21 crewhrs at location 23. The Method "Flying Truss Formwork for Slab" is suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" in the given time frame by considering rate of production at locations ("GFL" "2"). The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column A " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 2. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column B" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 19. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column C" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 21. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column D " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 19. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column E" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column F" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column G " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column H " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 18. 231 The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column K " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 18. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column L " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses: 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Column" has sufficient site storage space at "Site Location". The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is suitable for "Columns" because the rate of pour required is within the required range at locations ("GFL" "2" "3" "4" "5** f t6" "7 f l ! l8" H9M "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20" "21" "22" "23"). The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is suitable for "Columns" in the given time frame by considering rate of production at locations ("GFL" "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20" "21" "22" "23"). The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" for PCBS component "Core Wall A " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 18. The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" for PCBS component "Core Wall B" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 18. The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" for PCBS component "Core Wall C" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 18. The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" for PCBS component "Core Wall D " is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 20. The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" for PCBS component "Core Wall E" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 19. The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" for PCBS component "Core Wall F" is infeasible due to insufficient reuses 18. The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" for PCBS component "High Rise Tower Core" has sufficient site storage space at "Site location". The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" is suitable considering rate of pour for "High Rise Tower Core" at locations ("GFL" "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20" "21" "22" "23"). 232 The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" is not suitable for "High Rise Tower Core" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 10.68 crewhrs at location 2. The Method "Aluminum Waler Jumpform" is suitable for "High Rise Tower Core" in the given time frame by considering rate of production at locations ("GFL" "3" "4'! "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20" "21" "22" "23"). The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall A - non typical walls at G F L " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall B - non typical walls at 2nd floor" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall M " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 17. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall A l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 17. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall B l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 17. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall C I " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 18. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall D l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 18. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall E l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 18. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall F l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 18. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall G l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall H I " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 17. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall M l " 233 is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 16. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall SI" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 16. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall T l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 17. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall U I " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 16. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall V I " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 17. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall W l " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall C2" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 2. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall C3" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall M 2 " is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 2. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall U2" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Wall V2" is infeasible due to insufficient number of reuses 1. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" for PCBS component "Shear Walls" has sufficient site storage space at "Site location". The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is feasible considering rate of pour required for "Shear Walls" concrete placement at locations ("GFL" "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9" "10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19" "20" "21" "22" "23"). The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 45.24 crewhrs at location GFL. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for 234 "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 13.99 crewhrs at location 2. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 12.97 crewhrs at location 3. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.56 crewhrs at location 4. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 5. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 6. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 7. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 8. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 9. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 10. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 11. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 12. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 13. 235 The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 14. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 15. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 16. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 17. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 18. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 19. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 15.15 crewhrs at location 20. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is not suitable for "Shear Walls" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 14.50 crewhrs at location 21. The Method "Wooden Gang Formwork" is suitable for "Shear Walls" in the given time frame by considering rate of production at locations ("22" "23"). 236 ;;;;;;; Report for Rebar Placement Methods ;;;;;;;;;;; This is the Report generated for Method Statement - High-rise Superstructure Construction Rebar Placement Methods for PCBS components The Method "Rebar Assembly" does not have sufficient "Storage Space Width" 10.0 for component "High Rise Floor Slab" is less than 12.0 at "Site location". The Method "Rebar Assembly" does not have sufficient "Storage Space Area" 640.0 for component "High Rise Floor Slab" is less than 720.0 at "Site location". The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 36.33 crewhrs at location GFL. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.97 crewhrs at location 3. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 4. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 5. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 6. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 7. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" 237 because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 8. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 9. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 10. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 11. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 12. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 13. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 14. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 15. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab". because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 16. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 17. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 18. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 19. 238 The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 20. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 16.07 crewhrs at location 21. The Method "Rebar Assembly" is not suitable for "High Rise Floor Slab" because of lower rate of production; the estimated resource usage is 12.40 crewhrs at location 22. The Met