UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Linear scheduling and 4D visualization Tran, Ngoc 2007

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2007-0257a.pdf [ 23.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0228820.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0228820-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0228820-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0228820-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0228820-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0228820-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0228820-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0228820-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0228820.ris

Full Text

LINEAR SCHEDULING AND 4D VISUALIZATION by NGOC TRAN B.Sc. (Civil Eng.), Hanoi University of Civi l Engineering, 2001 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Civil Engineering) T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A A P R I L 2007 © Ngoc Tran, 2007 ABSTRACT Described in this thesis is a novel approach to 4D CAD. It involves a 2-way symbiotic relationship between 3D CAD software and a software implementation of linear planning that includes the ability to define a project product model and associate it with the process model. Strengths of the approach include the ability to readily modify construction sequences and examine their consequences using 4D CAD, and the ability to treat very large scale projects marked by significant repetition of their components. By building on a shared image of the project product model from both a design and construction perspective, the CAD model can be structured in a way that facilitates communication with the scheduling software and vice versa. Various challenges involved in making the 2-way process work are described, including consistency of product representation in the CAD and scheduling models, and the need to group CAD components at different levels of detail and locations to reflect the kinds of aggregation found in schedule representations of a project. The benefits of the approach include the ease with which different scheduling strategies can be explored and visualized, the links between 3D objects and activities can be maintained, and the completeness of the product model representations can be validated. An example is used to illustrate the approach adopted and challenges involved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii T A B L E OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii CO-AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT ix CHAPTER 1 - THESIS OVERVIEW 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION r.„ 1 1.2 MOTIVATION 1 1.3 OBJECTIVES 3 1.4 METHODOLOGY 3 1.5 FORM OF THESIS 7 1.6 REFERENCES 9 CHAPTER 2 - 4D C A D VIA LINEAR PLANNING AND 3D CAD 11 2.1 INTRODUCTION 11 2.2 SYSTEMS USED 13 2.3 APPROACH FOR INTEGRATING 3D/4D AND LINEAR PLANNING 17 2.4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 25 2.5 REFERENCES 27 CHAPTER 3 - LINEAR SCHEDULING AND 4D VISUALIZATION 29 3.1 INTRODUCTION 29 3.2 CASE STUDY 31 3.3 SYSTEMS USED 32 iii 1 3.4 A P P R O A C H FOR I N T E G R A T I N G 3D/4D A N D L I N E A R P L A N N I N G 34 3.5 C O N C L U S I O N S A N D F U T U R E R E S E A R C H 45 3.6 R E F E R E N C E S 54 C H A P T E R 4 - C O N C L U S I O N S A N D F U T U R E W O R K . . . 56 4.1 S U M M A R Y 56 4.2 C O N T R I B U T I O N S 56 4.3 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R F U T U R E W O R K 57 4.4 R E F E R E N C E S 58 A P P E N D I X 1 60 A P P E N D I X II 76 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Different types of mappings required to link CAD objects with PCBS components 46 Table 3.2: Example of exported table from MS Access to REPCON showing populated component attributes 46 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 3D CAD model of the case study in Autodesk Architectural Desktop 6 Figure 1.2 Physical component breakdown Structure including Location sets and their attributes in REPCON 6 Figure 1.3 Process view - Activities list expressing how project is built and are linked with product view 7 Figure 1.4 Main interface of the Linking program in Microsoft Access 7 Figure 2.1 Mapping CAD and REPCON Product Models for 6-story project 14 Figure 2.2 Planning system: (a) product (PCBS), (b) view association, and (c) process views 16 Figure 2.3 The Process of Integrating CAD and Scheduling 16 Figure 2.4 System User Interface for: (a) selecting the style and aggregation method, (b) grouping the objects by location, (c) linking PCBS components and CAD styles at individual locations, and (d) assigning the aggregated attribute values 23 Figure 2.5 Shots of end-of-month progress: November 2003 - April 2004 24 Figure 3.1 Mappings between CAD and REPCON product models for 6-story project, including (I) locations, (2) components, and (3) attributes 47 Figure 3.2 Planning system: (a) product (PCBS), (b) view association, and (c) process views 48 Figure 3.3 The Process of Integrating CAD and Scheduling 49 Figure 3.4 System User Interface for: (a) selecting the style and aggregation method, (b) grouping the objects by location, (c) linking PCBS components and CAD styles at individual locations, and (d) assigning the aggregated attribute values 50 vi Figure 3.5 CAD Database including multiple tables exported from ADT for the 3 r d Floor Structural drawing 51 Figure 3.6 The process of creating 4D Snapshots 52 Figure 3.7 Shots of end-of-month progress: December 2003 - April 2004 53 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, 1 would like to extend my deepest thanks to Dr. Russell and Dr. Staub-French for their support and mentoring. Despite busy schedules, they still have valuable time to instruct and guide me all the way to this level. My degree would not be completed without their patience and insight. 1 also want to thank Dr. Froese for his interesting courses and knowledge that has contributed directly to my thesis. I would also like to take this chance to thank all of my friends at UBC who work and experience great learning opportunities for me. 1 have learnt many new things from you. Secondly, I would like to say thanks you to my colleagues at the Hanoi University of Civil engineering in Vietnam for their encouragement and support which has helped me to thrive at UBC in Vancouver. Thirdly, I would like to say thanks to my mother, my father and other members of my family, who have continuously supported and helped me during this hard time of studying. Finally, Thanks Yen, my wonderful wife, who has walked with me side by side through several years of leaning and fostering. viii CO-AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT The author of this thesis, Ngoc Tran, was responsible for substantial contributions to the content and writing of the two co-authored manuscripts presented in Chapter 2 and 3. The two co-authors: Dr. Alan Russell - Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Chair, Computer Integrated Design and Construction - UBC, and Dr. Sheryl Staub-French - Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering - UBC, participated in the development and drafting of ideas and were equal partners with the thesis author in the review and revision of the manuscripts. Date (2007/04/20) Signature of Research Supervisor Signature of Thesis Author ix CHAPTER 1 - THESIS OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION The context of this thesis is to demonstrate the feasibility and values of linking two different planning/scheduling paradigms: linear planning and 4D (3D C A D + time). Our focus is on the completion of proof of concept with classes of projects involving multiple repetitive locations. The key element in this approach is having a product model on the scheduling side as well as the C A D side. A mapping between the two product models allows for the two-way flow of information - quantity information from C A D to scheduling and component status at different points in time from scheduling to C A D . The challenges in making the 2-way process work include consistency of product representation in the C A D and scheduling models, and the need to group C A D components at different levels of detail and locations to reflect the kinds of aggregation found in schedule representations of a project. The benefits of the approach include the ease with which different scheduling strategies can be explored and visualized, the links between 3D objects and activities can be maintained, and the completeness of the product model representations can be validated. 1.2 MOTIVATION Assessing the constructability of a design can be a significant challenge (Tabesh and Staub-French 2006), as can assessing the quality and workability of a schedule (Russell and Udaipurwala 2000). Getting both the design and schedule 'right' contributes significantly to timely delivery within budget and reduces the potential for changes and disputes. 3D-CAD allows designers, the client and construction personnel alike to assess the responsiveness of a design to client needs, the potential for design errors in terms of conflicts and overly constrained working spaces, and the ease with which components and systems can be constructed. From a 1 scheduling perspective, and especially for large scale projects, schedule visualizations using traditional means such as a bar chart or a time-scaled network diagram, while useful, offer limited assistance in assessing the quality / workability of a schedule, even when extensive filtering features are employed. 4D C A D offers the potential to animate a schedule thereby allowing an assessment of its correctness and workability to be made (e.g. Koo and Fischer 2000, Messner et al. 2002, Akinci et al. 2003). It also offers the potential to reassess elements of the design or construction strategy to enhance constructability (Staub and Fischer 1998). To date, considerable work has been done on 4D C A D , and strengths and weaknesses of the current-state-of-the-art have been examined (e.g. McKinney and Fischer 1998, Staub-French and Fisher 2001, Heesom and Mahdjuobi 2004). One area of difficulty is the ease with which a connection can be made and modified between the C A D model and the scheduling model in order to assess the implications of different design features and alternative construction strategies in terms of methods, sequencing, and space utilization. We seek to address this area of difficulty in the context of projects characterized by significant repetition - e.g. high-rise building, housing, bridge, tunnel, high-way, and elevated guideway projects. In so-doing, we make use of a generalized implementation of linear planning (LP) (Russell and Wong, 1993, Russell et al. 2003) in the context of a multi-view representation (Russell and Udaipurwala 2004) of a project. For the class of projects examined, the 2D representation (time and location) of a schedule in LP chart form provides significant incremental insights into the quality and workability of a schedule, as well as assisting in the development of a mental image of project status at different points in time. Nevertheless, still missing is a detailed linkage between what is being built and how it is being built. 2 1.3 OBJECTIVES In this research, we are focused on the following objectives: a) Investigating the implication for data structuring of 3D C A D models and a linear planning scheduling application to support the linkages the two models. b) Explore the feasibility of automation of two-way data flows between two systems: quantities information from C A D to scheduling and component status at different point in time from scheduling to C A D . c) Identify potential benefits and challenges for linking 3D C A D with linear planning schedules. 1.4 METHODOLOGY Our methodology is developed to accommodate the 2-way linkage between 3D C A D models in A D T and process views (describing how project is built) and product views (what is being built) in REPCON, a research program developed in the Department of Civi l Engineering at U B C . Another intermediary Visual Basic Application is built in Microsoft Access to facilitate linkages. The starting point is the 3D C A D model in ADT. A model is built to present a classical case of a project with a multiple similar working locations. The case study is a six-storey condominium project which we have named UpperCrust Manor (Russell and Udaipurwala 2005). We chose this project for a number of reasons: 1. The building industry has long a history of being supported by C A D programs; 2. The building can be easily extended to demonstrate the scalability; 3. The project is complex enough to demonstrate proof of concept. However, we believe that our research results from the use case could be used for other types of 3 linear projects in future research, such as bridges, highways, where locations are distributed both horizontally and vertically. The building is located in Vancouver, British Columbia with construction scheduled for completion in August, 2004. The ground floor houses 4 suites, floors 2 through 5 house 3 suites per floor, and the sixth floor houses two penthouse suites. The mechanical penthouse houses elevator equipment and ventilation equipment. The lot dimensions are 132 feet (frontage) by 116 feet with a building floor plate of 4,900 ft2 (70 feet by 70 feet). This project captures the essence of real-world projects, both in terms of scale and complexity. The 3D design includes multiple classes of objects, multiple levels, and multiple drawings. The foundation consists of spread footings, with different sizes for perimeter walls, columns, and the core. For the substructure and superstructure, walls are typically 12 inches thick (except for the interior wall in the stairwell which is 8 inches thick). Columns measure 1 '-0" by 2'-0", except for corner columns in the superstructure which measure 1 '-0" by 1 '-0". The slab on grade is 4 inches thick, the main floor slab is 8 inches thick, and the floor slab on typical floors is 7 inches thick. The product and process view of that project are then built in REPCON. To model the product view, a Physical Component Breakdown Structure (PCBS) of project is built. Part of the Project Physical Components Breakdown Structure (PCBS) is shown in the Figure 1.2. Activities and their association with PCBS component are then entered into the process view (Figure 1.3). The linkage between the two tools is by way of a Microsoft Access database application which allows mappings to be made between the product model objects in A D T and the product view in REPCON. This main interface of the program is illustrated in the Figure 1.4. We chose to work with MS Access for the linking program because of its ease of use and availability. We 4 recognize that there are more robust programming applications available to interface with ADT, particularly i f one is a member of the Autodesk Developer Network. MS Access is limited in its ability to interact directly with C A D data resulting in some inefficiency when exchanging data. However, this did not limit the functionality of the linking application that we created and we were able to successfully demonstrate proof of concept. Novel and central to the approach is a product model on the scheduling side which is associated with schedule activities as well as mapped onto the C A D product model. Benefits of the approach include a 2-way flow of data between scheduling and C A D , the ease with which large scale projects with repetitive elements can be modeled, and the added value that a 4D representation in combination with a linear planning schedule representation can provide in order to generate insights into the quality and workability of a schedule. Although not described in this thesis, other virtues include the ease with which alternative construction strategies can be explored, and the ability to contrast as-planned progress with actual progress. Ongoing work is focused on: completing the two-way flow of data, especially with respect to component attribute values back to scheduling for purposes of duration estimation; how best to represent work started but not yet completed; addressing challenges with product model mapping; and investigating the expandability of models. 5 Figure 1.1.3D CAD model of the case study in Autodesk Architectural Desktop ) $h Project PCBS i Pft Project UPPER CRUST MANOR - 6A5£ PRO XCT SCHEDULE LS 1 Location Set Physical Location Set GLOB Location Global project locaton i - SITE Location ate at ground level FDN Location Foundation ievet PARKADE Location Parkade level GFLR location Ground floor i 2 Location Second floor ;-3 Location Third ftecr • 4 Location Fourth fioer ••• 5. Location Fifth fkrar ;-::6 Location Sisth fbc* : MPHRF Location Mechantcal penthouse &raof • RFMPH Location Penthouse -oof .+'• LS2 Location Set Procurement sequence Ql System •f!iy s¥3*er<t *S 01 Subsystem Substructure structural system •-1 02 Subsystem Sucerstruciajre structural system 01 Sement verticals 01 Suoeieroent Columns 02 SXJbeiement Interior waSs 03 Suneiemeot Core 04 Suoesernent Staffs : Q2 Element Slabs 1 System Endocut e system 1 System Mechanical system i System ESectrfcat system • System Vertical transportation system ' System Interior partite)f*nQ/ce*ng systqem I System Interior n^isninci system 1 System Landscaping system mm mmmm AltnbulRC \ V«iuM | Glandwd PCBS Racord*! Activitn* ; PajHtam* j Qgcfty Mgt ! Charcot \ R*k Is DwipWn- ^Second Hoot PtfrrPFU.SI. e c * t ia Typ« | I ; De (caption i GIOC*«M j Worknc *eo Inlailoiy heigW 1-11-0 1 !r*of» awibut« defr*on >.wn above le.el I R/Q/l Ural Figure 1.2. Physical component breakdown Structure including Location sets and their attributes in REPCON 6 g i Process View - Activity List Interface tode Description Tirpe Calendar 04 | Race rrechantcai sieew-g in slab Ordered 1 Defau* Catendar 55 I Pace & fresh GR.R slab Ordered 1 Defau* Calendar 12 j Eadd* eriemai perimeter of substnjc Ordered 1 Defau* Calendar i 13 ; BuSd eLp€K*nidLir« Derived f Defaut Calendar - 31 Burfd SLpenBructure verticals OrtwreC 1 De*aul Calendar 01 F/? Scdurnns Orcerec 1 Defaul Calendar Q2, ffenforce cciwms Ordered 1 De-'aut Calendar 03 j F/P/S cere Ordered 1 Defau* Catenow 04: ResTforce core Ordered ! Date-i* Calendar OS F'3.-Satan Ordered 1 Ce*8u* Calender 0G FWtforce Mars Ordered 1 Oe/aul Calendar - 32 ! FJuJd superstructure slabs Ordered 1 Deiaui Calendar - STjForodafa Ordered ! Defaut Caientisr 321 Ren-force slab Ordered 1 Defau* Calendar 03 Pace electrical conduit tn slab Ordered 1 Defau* Calendar 01 Race mechanical sleew-g in dab Ordered 1 Default Calendar Q5 i Race i finish slab Ordered 1 Default Calendar Erect, use, djamanfie crane Derived t Default Calendar R 14 rteaponsibility Code S " TO! 6 Mechanical TDG3 Concrete Placing 4 f TOD1 Beavation A Sharin G001 General Contractor G 3D 1 General 3001 General GG07 General Carj TOOSRefaar 3001 General Co) T0OS R«bar 3001 General Coi G0Q1 General Csi TOOS Refcar TGIS Electrical T015 Mechanical TQ03 Concrete RJ G001 General Cor] Path UOT^ Co*- f* PhBM. f""~ Figure 1.3 Process view - Activities list expressing how project is built and are linked with product view Figure 1.4 Main interface of the Linking program in Microsoft Access 1.5 FORM OF THESIS This thesis consists of 4 chapters and 2 appendices. Chapters two and three present papers describing various aspects of our research. Two appendices are attached at the end of the 7 thesis. A version of chapter 2 will be published in the proceedings of the 2007 A S C E Construction Research Congress organized by ASCE and CIB at Grand Bahamas Island from 6-8May 2007. The authorship of this chapter is Ngoc Tran - Graduate student at the Department of Civil Engineering - U B C , Alan Russell - Professor, Department of Civi l Engineering, and Chair, Computer Integrated Design and Construction - U B C , and Sheryl Staub-French -Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering - U B C . Chapter 3 is an extended version of the conference paper in penultimate form for submission to the A S C E Journal of Computing in Civi l Engineering. The authorship of this chapter will be Sheryl Staub-French, Alan Russell, and Ngoc Tran. Chapter 4 is a conclusion chapter, which summarizes the research conducted; the contributions made and describe future works. Appendix I contains drawings of the 3D C A D model of the UpperCrust Manor project. Appendix II contains the screen captures of process view and product view inside REPCON which are used for our project. 8 1.6 REFERENCES Akinci, B. Tantisevi, K. , Ergen, E. (2003) "Assessment of the capabilities of a commercial 4D C A D system to visualize equipment space requirements on construction sites." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 989-995. Heesom, D., Mahdjoubi, L. (2004) "Trends of 4D C A D applications for construction planning." Construction Management and Economics, 22(2), p 171-182. Koo, B. and M . Fischer (2000). "Feasibility Study of 4D C A D in Commercial Construction." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), 251-260. McKinney, K. , and Fischer, M . (1998) "Generating, evaluating and visualizing construction schedules with 4D-CAD tools." Automation in Construction, 7(6), 433-447. Messner, J. Yerrapathruni, S.C., Baratta, A. , Riley, D.R. (2002). "Cost and schedule reduction of nuclear power plant construction using 4D C A D and immersive display technologies." Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Washington DC, 136-144. Russell, A . D. and W. C. M . Wong (1993). "New-Generation of Planning Structures." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 119(2): 196-214. Russell, A . D., Udaipurwala, A . and Wong, W. (2003). "A Generalized Paradigm for Planning and Scheduling." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 965-972. Russell, A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2004). "Using Multiple Views to Model Construction." CIB World Building Congress, May 2-7, Toronto, Canada, 12 pages. Russell, A . and Udaipurwala, A . (2005). "Case Study for Construction Planning and Control Course", Proceedings, CD Rom, 6th Construction Specialty Conference, Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, June 2-4, 2005, Toronto, Canada, 10 pages. 9 Staub, S. and Fischer, M . (1998). "Constructability Reasoning based on a 4D Facil i ty Model . " Structural Engineering World Wide, T191-1, Elsevier Science Ltd, 9 pages. Staub-French, S., and Fischer, M . , (2001). "Industrial Case Study of Electronic Design, Cost, and Schedule Integration." Technical Report No. 122, C IFE , Stanford University, C A . Russell, A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2000). "Assessing the Quality of a Construction Schedule." Construction Congress VI, Orlando, Florida, February, 928-937. Tabesh, A . and Staub-French, S. (2006) "Model ing and Coordinating Bui lding Systems in 3D: A Case Study." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33 (12). 10 CHAPTER 2 - 4D CAD VIA LINEAR PLANNING AND 3D CAD1 2.1 INTRODUCTION Assessing the constructability of a design can be a significant challenge (Tabesh and Staub-French 2006), as can assessing the quality and workability of a schedule (Russell and Udaipurwala 2000). Getting both the design and schedule 'right' contributes significantly to timely delivery within budget and reduces the potential for changes and disputes. 3 D - C A D allows designers, the client and construction personnel alike to assess the responsiveness of a design to client needs, the potential for design errors in terms of conflicts and overly constrained working spaces, and the ease with which components and systems can be constructed. From a scheduling perspective, and especially for large scale projects, schedule visualizations using traditional means such as a bar chart or a time-scaled network diagram, while useful, offer limited assistance in assessing the quality / workability of a schedule, even when extensive filtering features are employed. 4D C A D offers the potential to animate a schedule thereby allowing an assessment o f its correctness and workability to be made (e.g. Koo and Fischer 2000, Messner et al. 2002, Ak inc i et al. 2003). It also offers the potential to reassess elements o f the design or construction strategy to enhance constructability (Staub and Fischer 1998). To date, considerable work has been done on 4D C A D , and strengths and weaknesses of the current-state-of-the-art have been examined (e.g. McK inney and Fischer 1998, Staub-French and Fisher 2001, Heesom and Mahdjuobi 2004). One area of difficulty is the ease with which a connection can be made and modified between the C A D model and the scheduling model in ' A version of the paper has been accepted for publication in the proceeding of the 2007 Construction Research Congress, A S C E , Bahamas, 6-8 May, 2007. Tran, N . , Russell, A . and Staub-French, S. (2007) 4D C A D via Linear planning and 3D C A D . 11 order to assess the implications of different design features and alternative construction strategies in terms of methods, sequencing, and space utilization. We seek to address this area of difficulty in the context of projects characterized by significant repetition - e.g. high-rise building, housing, bridge, tunnel, high-way, and elevated guideway projects. In so-doing, we make use of a generalized implementation of linear planning (LP) (Russell and Wong, 1993, Russell et al. 2003) in the context o f a multi-view representation (Russell and Udaipurwala 2004) of a project. For the class o f projects examined, the 2D representation (time and space) o f a schedule in L P chart form provides significant incremental insights into the quality and workability of a schedule, as well as assisting in the development o f a mental image o f project status at different points in time. Nevertheless, still missing is a detailed linkage between what is being built and how it is being built. Set out in this paper is an approach for forging a linkage between C A D and linear planning. The key element in this approach is having a product model on the scheduling side as well as the C A D side. A mapping between the two product models allows for the two-way flow of information - quantity information from C A D to scheduling and component status at different points in time from scheduling to C A D . A virtue of the approach is the ease with which different scheduling strategies can be explored. The paper is structured as follows. A brief description of the tools used in demonstrating proof of concept is given. Emphasis is placed on the features o f the linear planning model implementation central to interfacing with C A D . A step-by-step process is then described for creating 4D images, with important challenges highlighted. In presenting the process, use is made of a mid-rise building to further clarify the steps. Findings are then summarized and ongoing work outlined. 12 2.2 SYSTEMS USED The two primary tools used in demonstrating proof of concept are Autodesk's Architectural Desktop (ADT) , and R E P C O N (Russell and Udaipurwala 2004), a research system developed at the University of Brit ish Columbia. The linkage between the two tools is by way o f a Microsoft Access database application (described later) which allows mappings to be made between the product model objects in A D T and the product view in R E P C O N . This is illustrated in Figure 1 with respect to the mapping o f levels in A D T to locations in R E P C O N , along with product model mappings of physical elements between the two systems. A lso shown in this figure is a rendering o f the example project used to demonstrate proof of concept. A D T was chosen because of its ability to create Building Information Models (BIM), semantically rich information models o f construction projects that include both 3D geometric information (e.g., component dimensions) along with non-geometric properties (e.g., material properties). Figure 1 shows the 'Concrete Core' object (known as a Wal l Style in A D T ) and a specific wal l 's properties. Note that the properties listed include typical dimensional properties included with A D T (e.g., Length and Height) as well as user-defined properties (e.g., Formwork Area). Featured in Figure 2.2 are aspects o f the linear planning implementation central to the 4 D - C A D work. Shown in Figure 2.2(a) is the product model view (called the physical component breakdown structure, P C B S ) in R E P C O N . A partial breakdown o f the physical components for the example project is given on the left hand side of Figure 2.2(a). In simple terms, the breakdown structure can be thought of as having two main branches: (i) location sets and their members (shown as a physical location set and individual locations identified, and a procurement sequence location set, members not shown); and (ii) physical components arranged in a hierarchical fashion (e.g. system, subsystem, element, etc.). 13 Descrta*8n Mechanics. Penhoii** & j Floor [ t s n / a a s ' L2 a * ?; ~ PR project UPPERCRUST MANOR - BASE PROJECT SCHEDULE <k LSI Locator Set Phy*cai locabon Set GLOB Location (&bat project ©eaten H7I Locator Ste at ground level FDN Location FourxJarjot. ievei PARKADE Locaoort Partade ievei &FLR Locatbn Ground ftoor 2 Locator) Second How 3 Location Thrd ftxfr 4 Location Fouithftjor 5 Location Rf*fioo* 6 Locatnn Sixth flow MPHftf Location Mechartrai peiitbotse & reef RfMPH Location Penthouse root J locator: Set Procurement sequence System Foijrdatcn system S 02 System Sf-cturaisyscem • 01 Subsystem Substructure sr-jct jra system - 02 Subtyjtnn Supet'stnir i^estn i^;* system S 01 Element Verde* 0; Sijtwtefiwnt tocimrw 02 5u betel writ IntefOr wate 03 Subetewnt Cote '• 04 Subeiement Sears 02 Etemefft SJabs * 03 System EPCBSJH* system S 04 System Mechanic* system * 05 System Esctrfcs system SHft , Figure 2.1: Mapping CAD and REPCON Product Models for 6-story project. Each physical component can be described by user specified attributes (upper right hand corner), and values assigned by defining at which locations the attributes apply (see P C B S Planned Attribute Value screen), thus forging a link between the two branches of the P C B S tree. The intent of the product model on the scheduling side is to provide management personnel with information central to the management tasks o f gauging productivity and production rates, tracking changes, and explaining reasons for performance - it is not meant to replace the kind of detail contained in the project's drawings. Shown in Figure 2.2(c) is the process view aspect of the system, with the activity structures listed on the left hand side, and two schedule representations shown on the right hand side in the form of a standard bar chart and a linear planning chart. We note in passing the additional value offered by the L P in terms of assessing how well production rates are matched, opportunities for work continuity, the potential for work congestion, and for 'visual izing' project progress at a given point in time. Central to the 4D 14 work is the ability to make associations between the product and physical views on the scheduling side, as shown in Figure 2(b) with respect to mapping the P C B S Subelement Columns which forms part o f the P C B S Subsystem Superstructure structural system. Mapped onto the Columns subelement are two activity planning structures - F/P/S columns (form, pour, strip) and Reinforce columns. Considerable power exists in this association, as all shared location instances o f the physical components and associated activities are treated in Figure 2.2(c). Differences in granularity between the product and process views can pose challenges. For example, schedule breakdowns may be more coarse than physical component breakdowns, resulting in many-to-one relationships - i.e. multiple physical components to one activity structure (the converse can also occur). 15 % Ete ?-oject_Vlew . Standards PCBS Window m> -3" - P R Project UPPERCRUST MANOR - BASE PROJECT SCHEDULE LSI Location Set Physical Location Set GLOB Location Gtabai project beacon SUE Location see at ground ievel FDN Location Foundation ievel PARKADE Location Parkade level GFLR Locaton Ground fbor 2 Location Second floor 3 Location Third floor 4 Location Fourth floor 5 Location Fifth floor 6 Location Sixth floor MPHRF Location Mechanical penthouse &. roof RFMPH Location Penthouse roof .+ LS2 Location Set Procurement sequence • Oi System Foundation system - 0 2 System Structural system m 01 Subsystem Substructure structural system | B 02 Subsystem Superstructure structural system s 01 Qement Verticals ^ — - ^ 1 ^ ^ -01 Subetement Columns w a s j 02 Subelement Inteoor wafc 03 Subelement Core 04 Subelement Stars 02 Element Sbbs 03 System Enctosure system * 04 System Mechanical system » 05 System Electrical system A*terta» iValusei Standi PCBS-Placards | AdivSas { Pfcy items] Qu*SVMg»| Changes] 6BS: \ Pfiskiseuaa/ EVBTHS | Prc|i « • PWh.PRW.tS6j. Cad»: J01 Dsstriptiofi jColumni Amibuta " Co nereis volume Reinforcing steel weigh! lrher:iH(lAftrtn:l>s Ctas? B/Q/L Unit Path: PRQ2.82.01 Attribute: Formwork area Value Type: Quantitative Unit m2 •' lrthB(* l^^ de8nftton)rome4>Ova ie*| ISum values (or all locations! (a) Location Range \ Location Range GFLR -6 : Value 103 7 Aflnbutesj Veto*f Standard PCSS RaCOrds, AOMMra jPg^itemsj Qw^Mgtj CfcMigeB j ESS ] Rhtklsaua*/Events] Prop* Coda OascnpSon Icolumni Qelete Edit ': -: . ••••••• • • • • • • :v:':i OK j Cancel Ready 130 1 02 Rpint (b) ' Iftdude B££<iciatB*l aorviha* rrt nerflavHt JjjjREPCON £L0?M 12f Fie pro^ct_view _. iKltfUgUiil. a » • s» standards Ho «SlU 4 V»w *• A C E I V i c y C I S C Ifl Activity Vjndow m f Code 01 G2 03 04 OS est * 06 * 07 08 09 * 10 n n ?2 -: 13 - 01 Description IReceipt of'Noticetc P^c'teed'"''"'' Mobil ze & clear site ; Bulk excavate substructure : Shotcrete shoring Excavate watt. cote, column foctmgs ; Excavate ctane footing ButfdwaB. core, column, crarte footings ; Build substructure verticals BacWitt Joofcngs prepare SOG 1 Dampproof penrtete* substructure walls • Construct slab on grade Construct ground User siab BacWiH external perimeter of substructure Build superstructure - Build superstructute ^enjeats columns Reinforce columns | fP-S core Reinforce care . i F/P/S staffs Reinforce stairs Build superstructure slabs i Erect use, dismantle crane Type \ Responsibili j Start Mile- G0Q1 Genera! Ordered i G001 General Ordered \ TOO. Exeavab| Ordered T001 Excavatu Ordered 3C * * ^ -k < ^ At* lubiti-tiitii!"* Shrtcrft* sfxr-ng FDfi | E\tjiv*ta trara boating fOK JWNHHHHHi S u 3 ^s '» tclum*. ( r i m footing* •BB H H paH«t«r wall ' ..ci --v-. F3V f^r3R«irrfwc« pariiBfer footn Ready Figure 2.2: Planning system: (a) product (PCBS), (b) view association, and (c) process views. 16 2.3 APPROACH FOR INTEGRATING 3D/4D AND LINEAR PLANNING Figure 2.3 illustrates the four main steps involved in interfacing the 3D model with the scheduling system to allow a two-way flow of information to calculate quantities used for scheduling and productivity analysis, check product and process model consistency, and create a 4D simulation. In what follows, we examine briefly each o f these steps, and treat in turn, where relevant, inputs and outputs, processes within, constraints to observe in order to facilitate communication between systems, and challenges, both from a system and user perspective. Quantities REPCON-1 Product (PCBS) and Process Views CAD Databases Filtered CAD Objects CAD 3D Model Figure 2.3: The Process of Integrating CAD and Scheduling. Step 1-Formulation of Product & Process Views in REPCON and Coordination with CAD Step one involves the formulation o f the project product (PCBS) and process views in the scheduling system in terms o f hierarchically structured components, component attribute definitions, and attribute values. Inputs and Outputs: Scheduler input for the product view includes characterization of the project in terms of locations, physical components, and component attribute definitions o f interest for managing the construction process and capturing as-built information. In terms o f 17 output from this view, it is this breakdown that must be coordinated with and communicated to the C A D system, in the form of a P C B S database as shown in Figure 3. Automated input to this step, which has yet to be fully implemented in the scheduling model, involves the derivation o f attribute values from C A D model attributes and their assignment to the appropriate locations in the P C B S model - the quantities box in Figure 2.3. Wi th respect to the process model in step 1, input from the scheduler consists of a representation of the project in terms of a set o f activity structures. Properties o f these structures include the locations at which work is to be performed and the sequence in which locations are to be worked, production rates at each location (this is where quantity information for P C B S component attributes fed back from the C A D model comes into play), and logic l inking the activities as well as other date constraints. Other scheduler input deals with l inking the product and process views (refer back to Figure 1). Output from the process consists of time contour information in the form of a comma delimited file which is imported into an Excel spreadsheet, given the mapping between the product and process views, and a progress date or series of progress dates specified by the user. Specifically, given the break down of activity work on a location by location basis, the corresponding physical components are flagged as either being completed (value of 1), or not yet started (value of 0) as of a specific progress date. We currently do not represent elements that are partially complete. Processes: Internal processes for the P C B S view consist of downward inheritance as specified by the user o f attribute definitions (thereby speeding the task o f defining properties), and upward aggregation of attribute values to upper level components in the hierarchy which can be used for productivity analysis, etc. For the product view, internal processes deal with computation o f durations as a function of associated component attribute values, productivity information and resource levels (as noted - not yet implemented), and schedule calculations. 18 Constraints: With respect to constraints, care must be taken to coordinate the definition o f locations / levels (in general the C A D model w i l l reflect only a subset of the locations defined in the scheduling system) and the vocabulary to be used to define attributes of interest. In general, far more attribute information is available in the C A D model, and attributes of interest for scheduling are derived from operations on a number o f C A D object parameters - e.g. form work area or concrete volume for all columns on a location by location basis. Challenges: A number of challenges exist, including: treatment of P C B S components not normally represented in a C A D model (e.g. excavation, shoring systems, temporary facilities like scaffolding, etc.); the desire to work with collections o f components on the P C B S side vs. single instances o f a component on the C A D side; different naming conventions in C A D vs. scheduling; the need to structure the C A D representation level by level; the depiction of partially completed components; and, the duration calculation process when multiple components are associated with a single activity structure. Step 2 - Formulation of 3D model in ADT This step involves the creation o f the 3D model in a way that is consistent with the P C B S . Inputs and Outputs: O f particular importance in creating the 3D model is the way objects are defined (in the Style Manager in A D T ) and locations are specified (Levels in A D T ) . Generally, the Style Manager is a central mechanism for defining and maintaining object styles. Users can rely on built-in styles or create their own styles from scratch for a particular project. When a new style is created for a particular component class (e.g., a new wall style), that style instance inherits the generic properties of that object. Users can also create new properties and set up custom calculations for determining that property value (e.g., Formwork Area). Users also define the Levels in A D T which correspond to a specific elevation, allowing C A D objects to inherit the level ID from the level o f drawings. Mult iple drawings can be associated with a 19 specific Level. C A D information can be exported using a built-in command in A D T . We exported the C A D data in the form of Microsoft Access mdb files (see Figure 3). The number of individual databases is equivalent to the number of drawings. Because each level in A D T may contain multiple drawings the focus here is on drawings rather than levels. The format of the output databases are primarily dictated by A D T and the user has very little control in determining their structure, which creates challenges in organizing this data (discussed in step 3). The databases contain multiple tables creating links between various A D T objects, styles, and property sets. The many databases created for a project in A D T need to be combined into a single database to support the l inking with R E P C O N components (refer to step 3). Processes: Internal processes relate to the object-based nature o f A D T models that feature data "objects" to represent building components, such as doors, walls, and windows. These objects store symbolic data about a building (e.g., material properties) in a logical structure with the 3D building graphics (the geometry), and they interact with each other intelligently (e.g., i f you move or delete a wal l , the window in the wall reacts accordingly). Users can extract useful information from the model, such as component quantities and attributes. W e selected A D T for this research because it provides this kind of functionality. Constraints: A s stated in the previous step, users should coordinate the definition o f levels so that they are identical to locations specified in the P C B S . In our environment, the Level ID in C A D corresponds to the Location Code in R E P C O N . The Style Names are also critical for mapping C A D objects to P C B S components. We found that it was necessary to create new styles in A D T rather than using built-in styles because we needed the flexibil ity in style naming and the ability to create user-defined object attributes. In addition, users should specify the component attributes that wi l l be required for the scheduling system so that they can be properly set up and included in the model. For example, the Concrete Core wall requires properties for 20 the Formwork Area, which can be derived by summing the two C A D properties Area-LeftNet and Area-RightNet (see Figure 2.1). Challenges: In addition to the challenges identified in step 1 for setting up the P C B S , objects modeled in A D T should also consider the physical representation o f objects from the construction perspective. In other words, they should reflect how objects are built in reality and adjust the model accordingly. For example, concrete columns for each level should not run from level 1 to level 6, but should be modeled separately on each level because they wi l l be linked to different locations in R E P C O N . Step 3. Create Integrated CAD-PCBS Model This step deals with the mapping of A D T objects to P C B S objects to create an integrated model. Inputs and Outputs: This step involves both a forward pass to create a single database that contains all C A D and P C B S objects and a backward pass for generating 4D Snapshots. In the forward pass, inputs are the P C B S database and the C A D databases. Users have to select the specific A D T databases (drawings for the different levels) and styles (classes of components) that are of interest to link with R E P C O N . The result o f this step is a single database that contains all objects for one project. We use an intermediate l inking program to extract from R E P C O N the P C B S components and locations in the form of a comma delimited file. Whi le yet to be implemented, the existence of the single database provides the basis for exporting attribute values to R E P C O N for calculating activity durations and conducting productivity analysis. In the backward pass, the input is the Time Contour showing the completion of P C B S components over time and the output consists of a set of filtered C A D Objects for creating 4D snapshots. Processes: A s shown in Figure 2.4, the main processes carried out in this step relate to the aggregation of A D T objects across styles (a) and locations (b), the creation of linkages between 21 P C B S components and C A D Styles (c), and the assignment of attribute values to P C B S components (d). a) Select the Style and Attribute Aggregation Method: This task allows users to select the C A D style to be aggregated and define how C A D object attribute values are treated in the aggregation process. Figure 2.4(a) shows the Concrete Core wall style selected and some of the attributes defined for that style. There are different types of attributes, so the system must be able to accommodate different modes of aggregation. For example, to aggregate all the Concrete Core Walls on Level 2 to link with the corresponding P C B S component, the different attribute values must also be aggregated for that level. We currently represent three aggregation modes: (1) sum up attribute values (e.g., Formwork Area), (2) leave attribute values unchanged (e.g., Style Names), or (3) delete attribute (e.g., Object ID, which isn't useful at an aggregated level). Users first choose the style from A D T and equivalent attributes to transfer to P C B S components, and then choose the aggregation mode for the different attributes (Figure 4(a)). b) Group Objects by Styles at Individual Locations: In this task, objects are grouped together by location and by style (Figure 2.4(b)). Users must select the Location ID (level ID in A D T ) for the style selected in (a). The two main variables that drive this process are the Level ID (which are embedded into each object extracted from A D T ) , and the aggregation mode described in (a). The Level ID in A D T objects must match the Location ID in R E P C O N to facilitate l inking. The result is a consolidated database of objects grouped by location ID. c) L ink P C B S components and C A D Styles at Specific Locations: This task involves the user choosing the style to be linked with P C B S at specific locations. Due to the differences between C A D Modelers and planner/schedulers in term of naming, there are several instances where one C A D style might be linked with different P C B S components. For example, the Concrete Core style in C A D is linked with the Concrete Core substructure, PR.02.01.01.04 at the parkade location, and with PR.02.02.01.03 from the ground floor ( G F L R ) to the roof ( M P H R F ) . 22 d) Assign Aggregated Attribute Values to R E P C O N : The assignment module allows users to assign the attribute values of a group at the aggregated level to the P C B S components. This task could be automated or semi-automated by some user-defined "matching" template. However, in our system, it is currently a manual process. Users must select the style's attributes to be assigned the calculated values in the P C B S components (Figure 2.4(d)). Linkages/Value Assignment Selected Style Concrete Core (a) AtnbuteName Aggregated | Unchanged Area-RightGross J Area-RightGross <formatted> • • _ • ConcreteVolume a • ConcfeteVolume tfformatted> n • FofTTworkA/ea n FormworkrVea <forrn3«ed> • • ( t e r a r t S : 114 Ji 4 JI 6 [• j [ M l » * J of 27 The Style: Concrete Coie @ Location 2 containing Has a attribute- ConcreteVolume with aggregated value of 798 06499999999934 rsSrfced with PCBS No. PR 02 02 01 03 Select Atttibute Uam PCBS coinponent Cote 8 componentts) Select location: Loc at)on Code Location Name GLOB SITE FDN" PARKADE GRLR 2 3 Global project location I Site at ground level : Foundation level i Parkade level Ground' f-oor i Second floor ! Third floor -(b) T r n [ H i y » i of 2 0 Selected Style C^oncrete Core Attributes Unit Formwoik area m2 Concrete volume m3 Rernlorcing sled weight mTn * (d) Check Value of aggregated CAD Assign Attrrbutes's Value to Weed PCBS Cornporierit'3 attribute Add value to cur rent value of PCBS component's attribute Select PCBS Component to be linked/changed PR 02 02 01 03 Cote Select Location of the bnk,)<je; 2 v You want to Ink the St^a ; onctetc Cots wrt>> PCBS CTxnoemnt ID- P=i 32 02 01 03 at location ID ; (c) Lank PCBS Component and CAD Styles Piepdf e Attributes Table to export Assign Location to the exported table Export to excel Figure 2.4. System User Interface for: (a) selecting the style and aggregation method, (b) grouping the objects by location, (c) linking PCBS components and CAD styles at individual locations, and (d) assigning the aggregated attribute values. Challenges: The issues encountered in this step center around the inconsistencies between the product model representations, and the omissions or gaps in the different product views. The challenge lies in developing an approach that does not overly constrain the users, on both the C A D and scheduling sides. Tensions exist in terms of the degree o f flexibil ity permitted, the 23 user input required, and the degree of automation provided. This work is still in the developmental stage and we are working through these issues. Step 4 - Create 4D Snapshots The linkages between P C B S and C A D objects are combined with the Time Contour generated from R E P C O N to create 4D visualizations in A D T . Inputs and Outputs: The key input to this step is the filtered C A D Objects, which identifies the C A D objects that are associated with completed construction activities. The C A D objects are filtered based on the Time Contour generated by R E P C O N (described in step 1), which shows the status of construction of the physical components (either completed or not yet started) for each location based on the date specified by the user. The output of this step is a 4D Snapshot (or a series of 4D snapshots) at each progress date generated from R E P C O N that graphically highlights the completed construction activities (Figure 2.5). Figure 2.5 - Shots of end-of-month progress: November 2003 - April 2004. Processes: The internal processes in this step deal with identifying those C A D objects that correspond to completed construction activities for the different locations and making them 24 visible in C A D . In general, the system identifies the relevant C A D objects by tracing the following mappings: Progress date (PCBS R E P C O N ) -> Finished P C B S components at multiple Locations ( R E P C O N ) C A D Styles at multiple Levels (ADT) . We then created a table that includes only those C A D objects that are completed for the specified time period (shown as 'Filtered C A D Objects' in Figure 2.3). In A D T , a V B A routine reads these C A D objects from the table and makes equivalent objects visible or invisible in A D T . Challenges: The primary challenge at the current time is the treatment of work in progress, especially when a P C B S component represents a collection o f C A D objects, while at the same timing minimizing the need to proliferate schedule activities. Although this isn't a significant constraint given the shortness o f activity durations for this type of repetitive work, it limits the completeness of the model. Another challenge, but a benefit at the same time, is ensuring consistency between the C A D and scheduling product models, and within the scheduling system, between the product and process models. Work is underway to develop checks for each in order to ensure the accuracy of both models. 2.4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH A n approach that capitalizes on the strengths o f a generalized implementation of linear planning coordinated with a 3D C A D model to produce 4D C A D images has been described. Novel and central to the approach is a product model on the scheduling side which is associated with schedule activities as well as mapped onto the C A D product model. Benefits of the approach include a 2-way flow of data between scheduling and C A D , the ease with which large scale projects with repetitive elements can be modeled, and the added value that a 4D representation in combination with a linear planning schedule representation can provide in order to generate insights into the quality and workability of a schedule. Although not described in the paper, other virtues include the ease with which alternative construction strategies can be 25 explored, and the ability to contrast as-planned progress with actual progress. Ongoing work is focused on: completing the two-way flow of data, especially with respect to component attribute values back to scheduling for purposes of duration estimation; how best to represent work started but not yet completed; and addressing challenges with product model mapping. 26 2.5 REFERENCES Ak inc i , B. Tantisevi, K., Ergen, E. (2003) "Assessment of the capabilities o f a commercial 4D C A D system to visualize equipment space requirements on construction sites." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 989-995. Heesom, D., Mahdjoubi, L. (2004) "Trends of 4D C A D applications for construction planning." Construction Management and Economics, 22(2), p 171-182. Koo , B. and M . Fischer (2000). "Feasibility Study o f 4D C A D in Commercial Construction." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), 251-260. McKinney, K., and Fischer, M . (1998) "Generating, evaluating and visualizing construction schedules with 4 D - C A D tools." Automation in Construction, 7(6), 433-447. Messner, J . Yerrapathruni, S.C. , Baratta, A . , Ri ley, D.R. (2002). "Cost and schedule reduction o f nuclear power plant construction using 4D C A D and immersive display technologies." Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , Washington D C , 136-144. Russell, A . D. and W . C. M . Wong (1993). "New-Generation of Planning Structures." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 119(2): 196-214. Russell, A . D., Udaipurwala, A . and Wong, W . (2003). " A Generalized Paradigm for Planning and Scheduling." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 965-972. Russell , A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2004). "Using Mult iple Views to Model Construction." CIB World Building Congress, M a y 2-7, Toronto, Canada, 12 pages. Staub, S. and Fischer, M . (1998). "Constructability Reasoning based on a 4D Facil i ty Model . " Structural Engineering World Wide, T191-1, Elsevier Science Ltd, 9 pages. Staub-French, S., and Fischer, M . , (2001). "Industrial Case Study of Electronic Design, Cost, and Schedule Integration." Technical Report No. 122, C IFE , Stanford University, C A . 27 Russell, A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2000). "Assessing the Quality of a Construction Schedule." Construction Congress VI, Orlando, Florida, February, 928-937. Tabesh, A . and Staub-French, S. (2006) "Model ing and Coordinating Bui lding Systems in 3D: A Case Study." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33 (12). 28 CHAPTER 3 - LINEAR SCHEDULING AND 4D VISUALIZATION2 3.1 INTRODUCTION Assessing the constructability o f a design can be a significant challenge (Tabesh and Staub-French 2006), as can assessing the quality and workability of a schedule (Russell and Udaipurwala 2000). Getting both the design and schedule 'right' contributes significantly to timely delivery within budget and reduces the potential for changes and disputes. 3 D - C A D allows designers, the client and construction personnel alike to assess the responsiveness of a design to client needs, the potential for design errors in terms of conflicts and overly constrained working spaces, and the ease with which components and systems can be constructed. From a scheduling perspective, and especially for large scale projects, schedule visualizations using traditional means such as a bar chart or a time-scaled network diagram, while useful, offer limited assistance in assessing the quality / workability of a schedule, even when extensive filtering features are employed. 4D C A D offers the potential to animate a schedule thereby allowing an assessment of its correctness and workability to be made (e.g. Koo and Fischer 2000, Messner et al. 2002, Ak inc i et al. 2003). It also offers the potential to reassess elements o f the design or construction strategy to enhance constructability (Staub and Fischer 1998). To date, considerable work has been done on 4D C A D , and strengths and weaknesses of the current-state-of-the-art have been examined (e.g. McK inney and Fischer 1998, Staub-French and Fisher 2001, Heesom and Mahdjuobi 2004). One area of difficulty is the ease with which a connection can be made and modified between the C A D model and the scheduling model in 2 A version of this chapter will be submitted for publication to the Journal of Computing in Civi l Engineering -American Association of Civi l Engineers. Staub-French, S., Russell, A . and Tran, N . Linear Scheduling and 4D Visualization. 29 order to assess the implications of different design features and alternative construction strategies in terms of methods, sequencing, and space utilization. We seek to address this area of difficulty in the context of projects characterized by significant repetition - e.g. high-rise building, housing, bridge, tunnel, high-way, and elevated guideway projects. In so-doing, we make use of a generalized implementation of linear planning (LP) (Russell and Wong, 1993, Russell et al. 2003) in the context of a multi-view representation (Russell and Udaipurwala 2004) of a project. For the class of projects examined, the 2D representation (time and location) of a schedule in L P chart form provides significant incremental insights into the quality and workability o f a schedule, as well as assisting in the development o f a mental image o f project status at different points in time. Nevertheless, still missing is a detailed linkage between what is being built and how it is being built. Set out in this paper is an approach for forging a linkage between C A D and linear planning. The key element in this approach is having a product model on the scheduling side as well as the C A D side. A mapping between the two product models allows for the two-way flow of information - quantity information from C A D to scheduling and component status at different points in time from scheduling to C A D . The challenges in making the 2-way process work include consistency of product representation in the C A D and scheduling models, and the need to group C A D components at different levels of detail and locations to reflect the kinds of aggregation found in schedule representations of a project. The benefits o f the approach include the ease with which different scheduling strategies can be explored and visualized, the links between 3D objects and activities can be maintained, and the completeness of the product model representations can be validated. The paper is structured as follows. A brief introduction to the case study and challenges involved are presented. Then, a brief description of the tools used in demonstrating proof o f concept is given. Emphasis is placed on the features of the linear planning model 30 implementation central to interfacing with C A D . A step-by-step process is then described for creating 4D images, with important challenges highlighted. Findings are then summarized and ongoing work outlined. 3.2 C A S E S T U D Y The case study focuses on a six-storey condominium project which we have named UpperCrust Manor (Russell and Udaipurwala 2005). The building is located in Vancouver, Brit ish Columbia with construction completed in August, 2004. The ground floor houses 4 suites, floors 2 through 5 house 3 suites per floor, and the sixth floor houses two penthouse suites. The mechanical penthouse houses elevator equipment and ventilation equipment. The lot dimensions are 132 feet (frontage) by 116 feet with a building floor plate o f 4,900 ft2 (70 feet by 70 feet). Figure 3.1 shows a 3D rendering of the UpperCrust Manor project. This project captures the essence of real-world projects, both in terms of scale and complexity. The 3D design includes multiple classes of objects, multiple levels, and multiple drawings. The foundation consists of spread footings, with different sizes for perimeter walls, columns, and the core. For the substructure and superstructure, walls are typically 12 inches thick (except for the interior wall in the stairwell which is 8 inches thick). Columns measure 1'-0" by 2 ' -0" , except for corner columns in the superstructure which measure 1 ' - 0 " by 1 ' -0 " . The slab on grade is 4 inches thick, the main floor slab is 8 inches thick, and the floor slab on typical floors is 7 inches thick. The important thing to note here is the variability in component sizing and distribution of components across levels. There is variation in component sizing both across a single level (e.g., different sized columns on each floor) and across multiple levels (e.g., different wall sizes from floor to floor). This creates challenges in both modeling the necessary elements, and mapping those elements to related schedule activities (which wi l l be described later). 31 3.3 SYSTEMS USED The two primary tools used in demonstrating proof o f concept are Autodesk's Architectural Desktop (ADT) , and R E P C O N (Russell and Udaipurwala 2004), a research system developed at the University of Brit ish Columbia. The linkage between the two tools is by way o f a Microsoft Access database application (described later) which allows mappings to be made between the product model objects in A D T and the product view in R E P C O N . This is illustrated in Figure 3.1 with respect to the mapping o f levels in A D T to locations in R E P C O N (1), along with product model mappings o f physical elements (2) and attributes (3) between the two systems. We chose to work with M S Access for the l inking program because o f its ease o f use and availability. We recognize that there are more robust programming applications available to interface with A D T , particularly i f one is a member o f the Autodesk Developer Network. M S Access is limited in its ability to interact directly with C A D data resulting in some inefficiency when exchanging data. However, this did not limit the functionality of the l inking application that we created and we were able to successfully demonstrate proof o f concept. We modeled the project in A D T because of its ability to create Building Information Models (BIM), semantically rich information models o f construction projects that include both 3D geometric information (e.g., component dimensions) along with non-geometric properties (e.g., material properties). Figure 1 shows the 'Concrete Core' object (known as a Wal l Style in A D T ) and a specific wal l 's properties. Note that the properties listed include typical dimensional properties included with A D T (e.g., Length and Height) as well as user-defined properties (e.g., Formwork Area). The object styles in A D T are critical for l inking with 32 R E P C O N components and the object attributes wi l l be shared with R E P C O N to derive component quantities. Featured in Figure 3.2 are aspects o f the linear planning implementation central to the 4 D - C A D work. Shown in Figure 3.2(a) is the product model view (called the physical component breakdown structure, P C B S ) in R E P C O N . A partial breakdown o f the physical components for the example project is given on the left hand side of Figure 2(a). In simple terms, the breakdown structure can be thought o f as having two main branches: (i) location sets and their members (shown as a physical location set and individual locations identified, and a procurement sequence location set, members not shown); and (ii) physical components arranged in a hierarchical fashion (e.g. system, subsystem, element, etc.). Each physical component can be described by user specified attributes (upper right hand corner), and values assigned by defining at which locations the attributes apply (see P C B S Planned Attribute Value screen), thus forging a link between the two branches o f the P C B S tree. The intent o f the product model on the scheduling side is to provide management personnel with information central to the management tasks o f gauging productivity and production rates, tracking changes, and explaining reasons for performance - it is not meant to replace the kind of detail contained in the project's drawings. Shown in Figure 3.2(c) is the process view aspect of the system, with the activity structures listed on the left hand side, and two schedule representations shown on the right hand side in the form of a standard bar chart and a linear planning chart. We note in passing the additional value offered by the L P in terms o f assessing how well production rates are matched, opportunities for work continuity, the potential for work congestion, and for 'visual izing' project progress at a given point in time. Central to the 4D work is the ability to make associations between the product and physical views on the scheduling side, as shown in Figure 3.2(b) with respect to mapping the P C B S Subelement Columns which forms part of the P C B S Subsystem Superstructure structural system. Mapped onto the Columns subelement are 33 two activity planning structures - F/P/S columns (form, pour, strip) and Reinforce columns. Considerable power exists in this association, as all shared location instances of the physical components and associated activities are treated in Figure 3.2(c). Differences in granularity between the product and process views can pose challenges. For example, schedule breakdowns may be more coarse than physical component breakdowns, resulting in many-to-one relationships - i.e. multiple physical components to one activity structure (the converse can also occur). 3.4 APPROACH FOR INTEGRATING 3D/4D AND LINEAR PLANNING Figure 3.3 illustrates the four main steps involved in interfacing the 3D model with the scheduling system to allow a two-way flow of information to calculate quantities used for scheduling and productivity analysis, check product and process model consistency, and create a 4D simulation. In what follows, we examine briefly each o f these steps, and treat in turn, where relevant, inputs and outputs, processes within, constraints to observe in order to facilitate communication between systems, and challenges, both from a system and user perspective. Step 1 -Formulation of Product & Process Views in REPCON and Coordination with CAD Step one involves the formulation of the project product (PCBS) and process views in the scheduling system in terms o f hierarchically structured components, component attribute definitions, and attribute values. Inputs and Outputs: Scheduler input for the product view includes characterization of the project in terms of locations, physical components, and component attribute definitions of interest for managing the construction process and capturing as-built information. In terms of output from this view, it is this breakdown that must be coordinated with and communicated to the C A D system, in the form of a P C B S database as shown in Figure 3.3. Automated input to 34 this step, which has yet to be fully implemented in the scheduling model, involves the derivation of attribute values from C A D model attributes and their assignment to the appropriate locations in the P C B S model - the quantities box in Figure 3.3. With respect to the process model in step 1, input from the scheduler consists of a representation of the project in terms of a set o f activity structures. Properties o f these structures include the locations at which work is to be performed and the sequence in which locations are to be worked, production rates at each location (this is where quantity information for P C B S component attributes fed back from the C A D model comes into play), and logic l inking the activities as well as other date constraints. Other scheduler input deals with l inking the product and process views (refer back to Figure 1). Output from the process consists o f time contour information in the form of a comma delimited file which is imported into an Excel spreadsheet, given the mapping between the product and process views, and a progress date or series o f progress dates specified by the user. Specifically, given the break down o f activity work on a location by location basis, the corresponding physical components are flagged as either being completed (value o f 1), or not yet started (value of 0) as o f a specific progress date. We currently do not represent elements that are partially complete. Processes: Internal processes for the P C B S view consist of downward inheritance as specified by the user o f attribute definitions (thereby speeding the task o f defining properties), and upward aggregation of attribute values to upper level components in the hierarchy which can be used for productivity analysis, etc. For the product view, internal processes deal with computation o f durations as a function of associated component attribute values, productivity information and resource levels (as noted - not yet implemented), and schedule calculations. Constraints: Wi th respect to constraints, care must be taken to coordinate the definition of locations / levels (in general the C A D model wi l l reflect only a subset o f the locations defined in the scheduling system) and the vocabulary to be used to define attributes of interest. In general, 35 far more attribute information is available in the C A D model, and attributes o f interest for scheduling are derived from operations on a number of C A D object parameters - e.g. formwork area or concrete volume for all columns on a location by location basis. Challenges: A number of challenges exist, including: treatment of P C B S components not normally represented in a C A D model (e.g. excavation, shoring systems, temporary facilities like scaffolding, etc.); the desire to work with collections of components on the P C B S side vs. single instances o f a component on the C A D side; different naming conventions in C A D vs. scheduling; the need to structure the C A D representation level by level; the depiction of partially completed components; and, the duration calculation process when multiple components are associated with a single activity structure. Step 2 - Formulation of 3D model in ADT This step involves the creation o f the 3D model in a way that is consistent with the P C B S . Inputs and Outputs: O f particular importance in creating the 3D model is the way objects are defined (in the Style Manager in A D T ) and locations are specified (Levels in A D T ) . Generally, the Style Manager is a central mechanism for defining and maintaining object styles. Users can rely on built-in styles or create their own styles from scratch for a particular project. When a new style is created for a particular component class (e.g., a new wall style), that style instance inherits the generic properties o f that object. New styles are needed i f a project component has a different composition or geometry. For example, all columns that are different sizes and shapes wi l l need a different style. Users can also create new properties and set up custom calculations for determining that property value (e.g., Formwork Area). Users also define the Levels in A D T which correspond to a specific elevation, allowing C A D objects to inherit the level ID from the level o f drawings. Mult iple drawings can be associated with a specific Level. C A D information can be exported using a built-in command in A D T . We exported the C A D data in the form of 36 Microsoft Access mdb files (see Figure 3.3). The number of individual databases is equivalent to the number of drawings. Because each level in A D T may contain multiple drawings the focus here is on drawings rather than levels. The format of the output databases are primarily dictated by A D T and the user has very little control in determining their structure, which creates challenges in organizing this data (discussed in step 3). The databases contain multiple tables creating links between various A D T objects, styles, and property sets. The many databases created for a project in A D T need to be combined into a single database to support the l inking with R E P C O N components (refer to step 3). Processes: Internal processes relate to the object-based nature o f A D T models that feature data "objects" to represent building components, such as doors, walls, and windows. These objects store symbolic data about a building (e.g., material properties) in a logical structure with the 3D building graphics (the geometry), and they interact with each other intelligently (e.g., i f you move or delete a wall , the window in the wall reacts accordingly). Users can extract useful information from the model, such as component quantities and attributes. We selected A D T for this research because it provides this kind of functionality. Constraints: A s stated in the previous step, users should coordinate the definition o f levels so that they are identical to locations specified in the P C B S . In our environment, the Level ID in C A D corresponds to the Location Code in R E P C O N . The Style Names are also critical for mapping C A D objects to P C B S components. We found that it was necessary to create new styles in A D T rather than using built-in styles because we needed the flexibil ity in style naming and the ability to create user-defined object attributes. In addition, users should specify the component attributes that wi l l be required for the scheduling system so that they can be properly set up and included in the model. For example, the Concrete Core wall requires properties for the Formwork Area, which can be derived by summing the two C A D properties Area-LeftNet and Area-RightNet (see Figure 3.1). 37 Challenges: In addition to the challenges identified in step 1 for setting up the P C B S , objects modeled in A D T should also consider the physical representation o f objects from the construction perspective. In other words, they should reflect how objects are built in reality and adjust the model accordingly. For example, concrete columns for each level should not run from level 1 to level 6, but should be modeled separately on each level because they wi l l be linked to different locations in R E P C O N . Step 3. Create Integrated CAD-PCBS Model This step deals with the mapping of A D T objects to P C B S objects to create an integrated model. Inputs and Outputs: This step involves both a forward pass to create a single database that contains all C A D and P C B S objects and a backward pass for generating 4D Snapshots (Figure 3.3). In the forward pass, inputs are the P C B S database and the C A D databases. Users have to select the specific A D T databases (drawings for the different levels) and styles (classes o f components) that are of interest to link with R E P C O N . The result of this step is a single database that contains all objects for one project. We use an intermediate l inking program to extract from R E P C O N the P C B S components and locations in the form of a comma delimited file. Whi le yet to be implemented, the existence o f the single database provides the basis for exporting attribute values to R E P C O N for calculating activity durations and conducting productivity analysis. In the backward pass, the input is the Time Contour showing the completion of P C B S components over time and the output consists o f a set of filtered C A D Objects for creating 4D snapshots. Processes: As shown in Figure 3.4, the main processes carried out in this step relate to the aggregation of A D T objects across styles (a) and locations (b), the creation o f linkages between P C B S components and C A D Styles (c), and the assignment of attribute values to P C B S components (d). 38 a) Select the Style and Attribute Aggregation Method: This task allows users to select the C A D style to be aggregated and define how C A D object attribute values are treated in the aggregation process. Figure 3.4(a) shows the Concrete Core wall style selected and some of the attributes defined for that style. There are different types of attributes, so the system must be able to accommodate different modes of aggregation. For example, to aggregate all the Concrete Core Wal ls on Level 2 to link with the corresponding P C B S component, the different attribute values must also be aggregated for that level. We currently represent three aggregation modes: (1) sum up attribute values (e.g., Formwork Area), (2) leave attribute values unchanged (e.g., Style Names), or (3) delete attribute (e.g., Object ID, which isn't useful at an aggregated level). Users first choose the style from A D T and equivalent attributes to transfer to P C B S components, and then choose the aggregation mode for the different attributes. Figure 4(a) shows the aggregation modes selected for some of the attributes of the Concrete Core object. b) Group Objects by Styles at Individual Locations: In this task, objects are grouped together by style at specified locations (Figure 3.4(b)). Users must select the Location ID (level ID in A D T ) for the style selected in (a). The two main variables that drive this process are the Level ID (which are embedded into each object extracted from A D T ) , and the aggregation mode described in (a). The Level ID in A D T objects must match the Location ID in R E P C O N to facilitate l inking. The result is a consolidated database of objects grouped by location ID. The formulation of the consolidated database of C A D objects in M S Access requires the execution of multiple grouping routines due to the fragmented nature o f exported C A D databases. Each drawing is exported as a single database and each database contains multiple tables. A s shown in Figure 3.5, the structure o f one database contains multiple tables with linkages between objects and styles. Objects are nested together by styles which have the same property data set (which describe the attributes to be attached to the objects in an extended data property). This structure creates challenges because our focus is on the C A D style rather than 39 the property set, and because different drawings have a different structure of objects. In our application, the user chooses the style names to be imported from each of the individual C A D databases. Then, the application executes several routines to extract the C A D style names and the related objects and properties from the different project databases, and then group all objects of the same type across the different locations. c) L ink P C B S components and C A D Styles at Specific Locations: This task involves the user choosing the style to be linked with P C B S components at specific locations. Due to the differences between C A D modelers and schedulers in term of component naming conventions, and the different levels of detail that schedulers may work, multiples types of mappings between C A D objects and P C B S components need to be supported. Table 3.1 shows the different mappings required to link the C A D and linear planning product models. There are several instances where many C A D styles might be linked to one P C B S Component. This situation may exist i f multiple styles are needed to represent a component (e.g., multiple column styles for different column sizes) or i f P C B S components are represented at a coarser level o f granularity (e.g., for the P C B S component 'Bu i ld Verticals', all work associated with physical vertical components would need to be mapped onto this single component). Similarly, there are several instances where one C A D style might be linked with different P C B S components. For example, the Concrete Core style in C A D is linked with the Concrete Core substructure, PR.02.0T.0T.04 at the parkade location, and with PR.02.02.01.03 from the ground floor ( G F L R ) to the roof ( M P H R F ) . Finally, there are instances where many C A D styles may need to be mapped onto many P C B S components. This typically occurs when there is a high degree of variability on the design side (e.g., multiple wall sizes on multiple floors) and there is a higher level of detail on the scheduling side (e.g., work is divided into Substructure and Superstructure). Due to the different types of mappings required and the need for f lexibil i ty in 40 terms of how C A D objects and P C B S components are defined, we have not fully automated this step. d) Assign Aggregated Attribute Values to R E P C O N : The assignment module allows users to assign the attribute values of a group at the aggregated level to the P C B S components. This task could be automated or semi-automated by some user-defined "matching" template. However, in our system, it is currently a manual process. Users must select the style's attributes to be assigned the calculated values in the P C B S components (Figure 3.4(d)). The result can then be transferred back to R E P C O N in the form of a comma delimited file. Table 3.2 shows an example of the quantities calculated for different P C B S components and locations in R E P C O N based on the C A D attribute values. Note that the quantities are aggregated at different levels o f detail to suit the needs o f the scheduler. Quantities are aggregated at the site level (e.g., gross area of the ground floor), at the component level (e.g., the formwork area of the concrete core), and at the detailed component level (e.g., the formwork area for round columns) for different locations. Challenges: The issues encountered in this step center around the inconsistencies between the product model representations, and the omissions or gaps in the different product views. The challenge lies in developing an approach that does not overly constrain the users, on both the C A D and scheduling sides. Tensions exist in terms of the degree o f flexibil ity permitted, the user input required, and the degree o f automation provided. This tension is most evident when dealing with the different types of mappings between C A D and R E P C O N (Table 3.1). In C A D , the designation of a style name is based on the appearance o f objects (composition o f objects). For example, i f the column or core at each level is made up of different sizes or shapes, then they would require a different style. However, in R E P C O N , we have much more flexibil i ty in terms o f defining the level of detail of the project product model. R E P C O N is structured as a 41 hierarchy of components including both locations and physical components. Each component can be described in terms of a number o f user-specified attributes which can be quantitative, linguistic or Boolean. Those values could be aggregated at any level in the hierarchy. This allows us to work at a coarser granularity when doing things like checking productivity, estimating activity durations, etc. Schedulers can also work at a more detailed level (e.g., tracking Rectangular and Round Columns separately) i f they choose. The variability in design details as represented by styles and the variability in levels of detail on the scheduling side make it challenging to automate this mapping process without overly constraining the user. We have chosen to use a semi-automated approach that requires some user input at this stage but we wi l continue to work through these issues. Step 4 - Create 4D Snapshots The linkages between P C B S and C A D objects are combined with the Time Contour generated from R E P C O N to create 4D visualizations in A D T . Inputs and Outputs: The key input to this step is the filtered C A D Objects, which identifies the C A D objects that are associated with completed construction activities. The C A D objects are filtered based on the Time Contour generated by R E P C O N (described in step 1), which shows the status of construction o f the physical components (either completed or not yet started) for each location based on the date specified by the user. The output of this step is a 4D Snapshot (or a series of 4D snapshots) at each progress date generated from R E P C O N that graphically highlights the completed construction activities (Figure 3.5). Processes: The internal processes in this step deal with identifying those C A D objects that correspond to completed construction activities for the different locations and making them visible in C A D . Figure 3.6 graphically illustrates the process for creating 4D snapshots. 42 (a) Import Time Contour: The Time Contour is imported into the M S Access l inking program. The Time Contour shows the break down of activities on a location by location basis with the corresponding physical components flagged as either being completed (value of 1), or not yet started (value of 0) as o f a specific progress date. (b) Identify "Fin ished" Objects in A P T : Specific dates at the end of each month are then extracted out of the table and act as a milestone to filter all the P C B S components at the different locations. Based on the mapping of C A D styles and P C B S components, we interpolate the mapping of P C B S components with individual " f in ished" C A D objects at the given date. (c) . Create Table o f Filtered C A D Objects: The "f inished" C A D objects are then put into one table with all attributes that are necessary for referencing the C A D objects in the project drawings. Currently we use two attributes to reference each C A D object ( A E C O b j e c t I D and Level ID). We created the attribute A E C O b j e c t ID by combining the A D T referenced drawing number and the Handle ID. These ID's, together with Level ID do not change with the opening and closing of drawings in A D T (in contrast with Ob jec t ID) . (d) Import Table in V B A Application: A l l drawings in the project are then opened in A D T using the Project Navigator. To find all corresponding objects in A D T that are listed in the "f inished" object table, we built a V B A application within A D T . This V B A application opens the M S Access database and based on the "f inished" object table, finds all the instances of objects in the C A D drawings. (e) Make "Fin ished" Objects Vis ib le: If the attributes A E C O b j e c t I D and level ID of the "f inished" C A D object in the table and the C A D object in the drawing are the same then we make that object visible in A D T . Drawings of the same project with "f inished" objects are then grouped together to create a 4D snapshot at the specified date. The fol lowing pseudo code describes the routine depicted in Figure 3.6. Open Access file: 43 O P E N Fi le Open window. S A V E the path in the Open dialog into path E S T A B L I S H I N G connection with the database in the path F R O M Opened Database S E L E C T filtered C A D object table S A V E all objects into the object table F O R all drawings in the project O P E N drawing F R O M the Opened Database S E L E C T the location list table and S A V E location ID into the Location list ID table D O U N T I L End of Location list ID table Check i f current location ID = level ID of current drawing IF yes T H E N F O R each object in the Model Space of this drawing Set object visible false Update object M O V E to next object W I T H the object table D O W H I L E N O T end o f the object table F O R each object in the model space of current dwg IF object.Handle = object. [AEC_ObjectId] T H E N Set object visible = false Update object E N D IF M O V E to next object. L O O P C L O S E object table E N D W I T H E N D IF M O V E to next location ID. L O O P C L O S E location list ID table N E X T drawing Challenges: The primary challenge at the current time is the treatment o f work in progress, especially when a P C B S component represents a collection o f C A D objects, while at the same timing minimizing the need to proliferate schedule activities. Although this is not a significant constraint given the shortness of activity durations for this type of repetitive work, it limits the completeness o f the model. Another challenge, which can also be viewed as a benefit, is ensuring consistency between the C A D and scheduling product models, and within the scheduling system, between the product and process models. Work is underway to develop checks for each in order to ensure the accuracy o f both models. 44 3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH A n approach that capitalizes on the strengths o f a generalized implementation of linear planning coordinated with a 3D C A D model to produce 4D C A D images has been described. Novel and central to the approach is a product model on the scheduling side which is associated with schedule activities as well as mapped onto the C A D product model. Benefits o f the approach include a 2-way flow of data between scheduling and C A D , the ease with which large scale projects with repetitive elements can be modeled, and the added value that a 4D representation in combination with a linear planning schedule representation can provide in order to generate insights into the quality and workability o f a schedule. Although not described in the paper, other virtues include the ease with which alternative construction strategies can be explored, and the ability to contrast as-planned progress with actual progress. Ongoing work is focused on: completing the two-way flow of data, especially with respect to component attribute values back to scheduling for purposes of duration estimation; how best to represent work started but not yet completed; and addressing challenges with product model mapping. 45 Table 3.1: Different types of mappings required to link CAD objects with PCBS components. Condition Mapping Description Example Variability Horizontally Many to One Variability Vertically Variability Horizontally and Vertically Mapping of many C A D styles to one PCBS component. One to Many Mapping of one C A D style to many PCBS components. Many to Many Mapping of many C A D styles to many PCBS components. Columns: There are two different sizes of columns (and two corresponding styles) that must be linked to one PCBS component for 'Columns.' Concrete Core: The concrete core is mapped onto PCBS components for 'Substructure' and 'Superstructure.' Concrete Core: If the concrete core has some variation in size (e.g., wall width) then multiple C A D styles would be mapped to multiple PCBS components. Table 3.2: Example of exported table from MS Access to REPCON showing populated component attributes. Path to Component Description Attribute Units PR.LS1.GFLR PR.LS1.2 PR.LS1.3 PR.LS1.GFLR Ground floor Gross Area m 12340 a Working Area 2 m 12300 _o PR.LS1.2 Second Floor Gross Area 2 m 11550 u Working Area ™2 m 115 -1 PR.LS1.3 Third Floor Gross Area Working Area m ™2 m 11350 11250 PR.02.02.01.03 Concrete core Number # 8 8 8 Formwork Area m 30 110 110 Concrete ™3 m 6 18 18 -*-» d Volume o o PR.02.02.01.02 Rectangular Number # 6 2 2 Zomp Column Formwork Area m 70 70 70 Zomp Reinforcing Steel mTn 12 12 12 PR.02.02.01.02 Round Number # 0 4 • 4 Column Formwork Area m 2 0 75 75 Reinforcing Steel mTn 0 15 15 46 Flame ~-~~™ < Perh..J: roof m F.!£Cf»an sea! Penncuse 4 P-MT 6tri FOOT 5ti F«c.r 4lnf <jor 3rd Pteor 2r«j Pioor Greu <\4 Floor F&tin*J4r:kHi 01 PCBS| _»*<> * * >R Project tJPPEfcC*UST MAHOR - BASE PROJECT SCHEDULE E LSI Location Set Physcs LccaOon Set GlOs Locator) Sbfe* project ncaton SITE Locator s « » gro.irK) tvet FDN Location Founoaoon ewei PWWDE Location Parfcadesvel GFLR Location Ground ftoor 2 Uxadon Secorrfftoor 3 Location Thrdteor 4 Locaton Fouittiffecf 5 Locator Ftttifox 6 Location Sixth fccx HPHRf Locaton ^charccal penthouse i roof RFMPH Locaton Penthccse roof £ L52 Locaton Set Procurement sequence 01 System foiirwiatort system | i 02 System Str^ fciurai system >i 01 Su&systwn Substructure structural system 02 SubsysGem Superstructure sr^cturai system - 01 Efemere verucats 01 Subeemert Columns 02 Subefcmert jnovtervsaiis 03 Subetement core ; 04 Subefcmert stairs 02 Element Shbs H 03 System Encosure systerr « 04 System Mechancat system I 05 System BBOMOl system ProjjKt PCBS tfi'BdMofciis; Oat* : g.'O/L Figure 3.1: Mappings between CAD and REPCON product models for 6-story project, including (1) locations, (2) components, and (3) attributes. 47 Jii REPCON 6 00-PROJ1 1XSTRAT8 - [Project PCBS] file Project^ Vtew _ Standards PCBS Mr&t i Vatmw I SiwtdBKf -PC8S Becwcttj ACT R Project UPPERCRUST MANOR - BASE PROJECT SCHEDULE I LSI Location Set Physical location set GLOB Locaton Giobai project bcation SITE Location Sire at ground level ; FDN Locaton FoundaOon eve! PARKADE Location Parttade level GFLR Location Ground floor 2 Locaton Second floor '. 3 Locaton Trtidfbor 4 Locaton Fourth ftaor i 5 Location Ffth ftaor 6 Location Sixth ftaor MPHRF Location Mechancal penthouse 8i roof RFMPH Location Penthouse roc/ i LS2 Location Set Procurement sequence I 01 System Foundation system I 02 System Structural system $ 01 Subsystem Substructure structural system - 02 Subsystem Superstructure structural system - 01 Element verticals 01 Subelement Columns 02 Subetement Interior waHs 03 Subelement Core 04 Subelement Stairs 02 Element Slabs $ 03 System Enclosure system >: 04 System Mechancal system * 05 System Electrical system Pa* PR02KO Coda joi" AnfrtJUta *hafit9tJA»rftw»: ClasB B/O/L Unit PCBS Planned Attribute V»iu* j PotKpaa2.02.3i. •I ABrrbtfle'F'onmvorkofeo i VaJueType; QuartWatrve Unfcrttf - ' v o i u ^ ' c e i l l...:aflunu (a) Location Range i j location Range j jGFLR -6. Value 103 7 ' 6.00-PROjmSTUATB • [ P T O M M Be £ra)ect_V]ew _ standards j* ft. a,*©, t i n * Pn»f*e*PC85 : P«h PRW.B2.flt 110191 F;P/Suiiuiwi* * j 1 3 CI 0? Remlorce column* * (b) | : f lndude(M»«j«8fJac»uiiwsutnBJrtlBW»! j Ado/ytJd^ j : j; j Canto! • . i i Code 01 02 03 04 OS 051 Description {"•ce^wWKetoT'wceed 1 Mobilize 8. clear site I Bulk excavate substructure I Shotcrete shoring I Excavate waif, core, column footings 1 Excavate crane footing 1 Buikt wall. core, column, crane footings 1 Build sub structure verticals : Backfill footings, prepare SOG I Dampproof perimeter substructure waits i Construct slab on grade | Construct ground floor slab I Backfill external perimeter ot substructure I Buiid superstructure Build superstructure verticals 1F/P/S columns I Reinforce columns | F/P/S core I Reinforce core i F/P/S saws : Reinforce stairs I Buiid superstructure slabs 9 Erect use. dismantle crane R e a d y Figure 3.2: Planning system: (a) product (PCBS), (b) view association, and (c) process views. 4 8 " • '""uT-J Quantities • REPCON S Z 3 P^H^n. :; Product (PCBS) and Process Views Legend: PCBS Database Time Contour CAD-REPCON — LINKAGE SYSTEM ;~~ f \ III" j \ C D y Integrated CAD-PCBS Model CAD Databases Filtered CAD Objects »• Forward Pass: Sharing quantity information from CAD objects to PCBS components. -*• Backward Pass: Generation of 4D Snapshots based on component status in REPCON. Figure 3.3: The Process of Integrating CAD and Scheduling. 49 Linkages/Value Assignment Selected Style ;Concrete Core Available Attributes from CAD object (a) AtnbuteName Aggregated Unchanged Area-RKjhtGross 0 • Area-RightGross <formatted> • • ConcteteVolume • ConcreteVolume <formatted> • n FormworkArea • FormworkArea <formatted> • • Record: UlXlJ l 6 I j jH j gg 0 f n Select location: LocationCode Location Name GLOB SITE FDN PARKADE GFLR 2 3 Global project location Site at ground level Foundation level Parkade level Ground floor Second floo< Third floor (b) Record: [ N T T i r 6 rrXMp"i] of 20 The Style: Concrete Core @Locabbrr. 2 containing Ha* a attribute: ConcteteVolume wth aggregated value of 798 06499999999994 is linked with PCBS No. PR 02 02 01 03 Select Attribute hoet PCBS component Cote conponent(sJ Attributes Unit A. • Formwork area m2 Concrete volume m3 Reinforcing steel weight mTn * (d) 2 Check Value of aggregated CAD obfects's attribute Assign Attributes^ Value to linked PCBS Component's attribute Add value to current value of PCBS component's attribute Selected Style Concrete Core Select PCBS Component to be finked/changed PR 02 02 01 03 Select Loc.it!on of the linkage. 2 You want to ink the Stvte Cortctetg Core with PCBS component ID: F f l QZ0201 ii3 (c) at location ID , Link PCBS Component and CAD Styles Refresh Piepate Attributes Table to export Assign Location to the exported table Export to excel Exit Figure 3.4. System User Interface for: (a) selecting the style and aggregation method, (b) grouping the objects by location, (c) linking PCBS components and CAD styles at individual locations, and (d) assigning the aggregated attribute values. 50 d FL structural system : Database (Access 2000 fit Objects • Tables Queries m Forms si Reports *i Pages a Macros M Modules Groups O H Favorites ilii Create table in Design view 31 Create table by using wizard OH Create table by entering data E3 AEC_Drawings 9 AEC_Object Types • AEC_Objects 3 AEC Property Definitions 9 lAEC Property Set Definitions • Brick Wai Style • Column Style S Concrete Wall • DoorStyles 3 a Frames tyles ManufacturerStyles Railing Style WindowStyles 3 « FropertySetld | Property Set Name Descnptton Name in Drawing +: 1 Brick Wall Style Style-based Walt schedule Bnck Wall Style 2 Concrete War* Concrete Wall 3 P^anirfacturerStyies Style-based Manufacturer r M an ufact u rerStyl es • 4 Ratling Style Railing Style 5 DoorStytes Style-based Door schedule Style-based Door and Wine Style-based Window and V> DoorStytes FrameStyles WirtdowStytes Coiumn Style 1 + 6 FrameStyles 7 WmdowStyles 8 Column Style i Figure 3.5. CAD Database including multiple tables exported from ADT for the 3rd Floor Structural drawing. 51 (a) Import Time Contour y STRATBSE.CSV I i i © A B c L i Comp orient Path to Compcrvent Location 2 31AUG06 30SEPO6 31OCT06 30NOV06 ^ | Interior PR 02 02.01.02 S H o 1 1 _S5j interior PR.02.02.01.02 6 d' 0 11 t 56j Interior PR 02.02 01 02 MPHRF 0i 0 ' t l 57 ICore PR 02.02 01.03 GFLR tr ' SS Core PR 02 02 01 03 _ ' 2 JL. JL tr:...: 1 59 {Core PR. 02.02 01 03 3 ' f 1 C i 60 iCore PR 02 02 01 03 4 0 1 ii i 61 Core PR 02 02 01 03 i Oi 1 i i 62 Core PR.02.O2.Ot 03 J v. 63 Core PR 02.02.01 03 MPHRF "of " » i t State po n7 n? nr I U s? 4 si « H 1 » > IVSTRATBSEy ' |< >: .: (c) Create Table of Filtered CAD Objects (b) Identify "Finished" Objects in ADTs j 1 •r—i> srs*. Impoit Data Find Date on Empty Finished the table PCBS FiKefing PCBS Based on spected date Create Table of FmenedQbtect Record; (Wj < | ! B S S B °' 5 • 30APR04 ubjec ts . Table A E C . . . . . C * H B C W •5 r CNecttO Lawl PCBS 1CCE 11417 2087182448 PARKADE PR 02 01 02 01 1EE6 11418 2127606384 GFLR PR 02 01 02 02 1ECB 1141* 2127606232 GFLR PR 02 01 02 02 1EC8 11420 2127606208 GFLR PR 02.01 02 02 1E71 1142V 2085782600 GFLR PR 02.01 02 02 1CD8 11422 2085781760 GFLR PR 02 01 02 02 EDS 11423 2122972480 3 PR 02.02 01,01 EDS 11424 2122972464 3 PR 02 02 01 01 ED4 11425 2122972448^ 3 PR 02.02 01 01 E64 11426 2122972320 3 PR 02 02 01 01 EDS 11427 2120674624 4 PR 02,02.01 01 2040 11442; 2127607144 GFLR PR 02.02 01 01 itecorft (JT) i |~ " rnr>iif>*i of (d) Import Table in VBA'Applicatipn D:^tudy\T>iesis\test new.rodb Open Access file Filter objects Turn everything On Turn everytnrig Off Figure 3.6. The process of creating 4D Snapshots. 52 Figure 3.7. Shots of end-of-month progress: December 2003 - April 2004. 53 3.6 REFERENCES Ak inc i , B. Tantisevi, K., Ergen, E. (2003) "Assessment of the capabilities of a commercial 4D C A D system to visualize equipment space requirements on construction sites." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 989-995. Heesom, D., Mahdjoubi, L. (2004) "Trends o f 4D C A D applications for construction planning." Construction Management and Economics, 22(2), p 171-182. Koo , B. and M . Fischer (2000). "Feasibility Study o f 4D C A D in Commercial Construction." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), 251-260. McKinney, K., and Fischer, M . (1998) "Generating, evaluating and visualizing construction schedules with 4 D - C A D tools." Automation in Construction, 7(6), 433-447. Messner, J . Yerrapathruni, S.C. , Baratta, A . , Ri ley, D.R. (2002). "Cost and schedule reduction o f nuclear power plant construction using 4D C A D and immersive display technologies." Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , Washington D C , 136-144. Russell, A . D. and W. C. M . Wong (1993). "New-Generation of Planning Structures." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 119(2): 196-214. Russell , A . D., Udaipurwala, A . and Wong, W . (2003). " A Generalized Paradigm for Planning and Scheduling." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 965-972. Russell , A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2004). "Using Mult iple Views to Model Construction." CIB World Building Congress, M a y 2-7, Toronto, Canada, 12 pages. Russell, A . and Udaipurwala, A . (2005). "Case Study for Construction Planning and Control Course", Proceedings, C D Rom, 6th Construction Specialty Conference, Canadian Society o f C i v i l Engineers, June 2-4, 2005, Toronto, Canada, 10 pages. Staub, S. and Fischer, M . (1998). "Constructability Reasoning based on a 4D Facil ity Model . " Structural Engineering World Wide, T191-1, Elsevier Science Ltd, 9 pages. 54 Staub-French, S., and Fischer, M . , (2001). "Industrial Case Study of Electronic Design, Cost, and Schedule Integration." Technical Report No. 122, C IFE , Stanford University, C A . Russell, A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2000). "Assessing the Quality of a Construction Schedule." Construction Congress VI, Orlando, Florida, February, 928-937. Tabesh, A . and Staub-French, S. (2006) "Model ing and Coordinating Bui lding Systems in 3D: A Case Study." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33 (12). 55 CHAPTER 4 - CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 4.1 SUMMARY We have successfully implemented a generalized method to link 3D C A D model with linear planning program to produce 4D images. Though we managed this linkage at the level of proof of concept, the benefits and advantages of this method has been exposed including the interactive data flows between the two systems, the ease of modeling large scale project with repetitive elements, and the 4D representation synchronized with linear planning charts. Central to our approach is the linkage of two product models inside R E P C O N and A D T . A s each product model represent different viewpoints of users from different parties in project, they could be used to calculate other variables specifically for those users, and used to check the consistency o f the model. Potential benefits and further developments wi l l be investigated in the future. 4.2 CONTRIBUTIONS The major contribution of this research is the 2-way linkage between a 3D C A D program and a linear planning program. Data from 3D C A D objects could be transferred to linear planning program to calculate durations and conduct productivity analysis. Scheduling information could then be transferred to C A D to create 4D representation to be used in the constructability analysis process in conjunction with linear planning charts. Another contribution is the investigation of the structure o f 3D C A D to be linked with the scheduling program. We focus on the flexibility of the method to capture 3D C A D objects' attributes as well as the structuring o f C A D objects in a manner to support scheduling. 56 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK This research could be further developed in the fol lowing ways: Test the expandability of the methodology - by expanding the model in C A D and R E P C O N both horizontally and vertically. Further automate the linkages in the current 2-way flow of data between 3D C A D and linear planning program. Develop a more efficient and robust process using a hierarchical data structure ( X M L ) instead of current "f lat" files. Further investigate the treatment o f linkages (one to many, many to one, many to many) between 3D C A D and the scheduling product model. 57 4.4 REFERENCES Ak inc i , B. Tantisevi, K., Ergen, E. (2003) "Assessment of the capabilities o f a commercial 4D C A D system to visualize equipment space requirements on construction sites." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 989-995. Heesom, D., Mahdjoubi, L. (2004) "Trends of 4D C A D applications for construction planning." Construction Management and Economics, 22(2), p 171-182. Koo, B. and M . Fischer (2000). "Feasibility Study o f 4D C A D in Commercial Construction." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), 251-260. McKinney, K., and Fischer, M . (1998) "Generating, evaluating and visualizing construction schedules with 4 D - C A D tools." Automation in Construction, 7(6), 433-447. Messner, J . Yerrapathruni, S.C. , Baratta, A . , Ri ley, D.R. (2002). "Cost and schedule reduction o f nuclear power plant construction using 4D C A D and immersive display technologies." Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, A S C E , Washington D C , 136-144. Russell, A . D. and W. C. M . Wong (1993). "New-Generation o f Planning Structures." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, A S C E , 119(2): 196-214. Russell, A . D., Udaipurwala, A . and Wong, W . (2003). " A Generalized Paradigm for Planning and Scheduling." Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, 965-972. Russell, A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2004). "Using Mult iple Views to Model Construction." CIB World Building Congress, May 2-7, Toronto, Canada, 12 pages. Russell, A . and Udaipurwala, A . (2005). "Case Study for Construction Planning and Control Course", Proceedings, C D Rom, 6th Construction Specialty Conference, Canadian Society o f C i v i l Engineers, June 2-4, 2005, Toronto, Canada, 10 pages. Staub, S. and Fischer, M . (1998). "Constructability Reasoning based on a 4D Facil i ty Model . " Structural Engineering World Wide, T191-1, Elsevier Science Ltd, 9 pages. 58 Staub-French, S., and Fischer, M . , (2001). "Industrial Case Study of Electronic Design, Cost, and Schedule Integration." Technical Report No. 122, C IFE , Stanford University, C A . Russell, A . D. and Udaipurwala, A . (2000). "Assessing the Quality of a Construction Schedule." Construction Congress VI, Orlando, Florida, February, 928-937. Tabesh, A . and Staub-French, S. (2006) "Model ing and Coordinating Bui lding Systems in 3D: A Case Study." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33 (12). 59 APPENDIX I 3D CAD MODEL IN AUTODESK ARCHITECTURAL DESKTOP 2006 Figure 1.1 3D rendering of the 3D CAD Model 60 Figure 1.2. Exploded version of the model to show the drawing composition of the project i » t i l 1 1 1 - 1 IF My Isttnal-MANOR 9R0«C7 -• Sty^ es_STD.d>*g 3 £ j j ArchtBdural Objects :* 01 Curiam Wad Styles j * Curtain Wall Unit Styles i i ( | Door Styles § H Door /Window Assembly Styles 9 H M SasHng Styles 4- J f RoofSiab Edge Styles * # Roof Sab Styles + ** Sab Edge Styles ; Sab Styles 5 - X Space Styles i JP Star Styles 1 ^ Star Winder Styles .£-fP Structural Member Shape L^ sflnifcons t 1 Structural Member Styles & 4 Cic^uP Group Deflnrtjom * a Wal Endcap Styles * 11 Wal Modifier Styles « <k Wal Opening Endcap Styles * I I WaS Styles +• P Window Styles S {^ J Doajmentabon Objects 9 H 2D Secbon/Bevation Styles ^ £ £3 AEC Dmenaon Styles j * £ | Area Group Styles * Area Styles 31 CakUaoon Modifier Styles -£ ;r: Dtspiay Theme Styles * | s Group Templates ^ * •[!?} f'iame Definitions * |ab Property Data Forrrats + irj Property Set Definitions H Schedule Table Styles a C] Multi-Purpose Objects ts H AEC Polygon Styles If? Gassificatjon Definitions * Layer Key Styles 4; Mask Sock r>fV«tians £ C Mass Semen: Styles 8 i Matefiaf Definitions is-** Mult-View BtockDefinifions * Profiles •Efl 2nd Ft structural system.dwg Drawing Sorted Sty* Type 9Curtain Wal Styles I : Certain WaH Unit Styles ! | Door Styles n Door AVndow Assembly Styles I I Railing Styles a# Roof Slab Edge Styles § Roof Stab Styles • » Slab Edge Styles «•> Slab Styles ~^ Space Styles # Stair Styles W Star Wilder Styles ^Structural Merflber Shape Defint.. 1 Siructural Member styles Wal Cleanup Group Detritions * Wal Endcap Styles • M Modfier Styles a . wal Opening Ehdcac Styles HI WaH Styles S Window Styles List of Architectural i objects available in > A D T J List of Documentation objects available in A D T List of Multi-purpose Objects available in A D T OK Can"! 1 [ APpV Style Figure 1.4. Style Manager - ADT's mechanism for controlling predefined and user-defined 3D CAD objects styles 62 Modify Construct mm 3e» Option 2n0 f L «iiucturw sy«fero 2rtd floor •tTictaraf aystwi C C •>»&*J ct»»StTijCtur»RCotumn 3n0 0 in* s S ' T I M C ' ' 4 *h Soar • 3 M f l M * 2 2nd Boot S V f Constructs 10f Arch<aK.tur<jf 9 Cobm Grid |j? 1st Ground ROOT Str Sys ^fi 2i*i H. structural systeni CTR. structural system n R, s i i uc tma i system t 5th H system flp 6th R. structural sys tem P iayout i P a r k a d e 5g3 Roof u'ntnn I & & Sabs • M i A M k l l I twm Slab ^ 3oofl?ve1Siab Stab level 1 ' § H M J - l i f e M 3 i f p Slab level 4 «f Sab level 5 5!ab ievel S I Elements u y I ass § *s « . M •y u a i i a * • Drawings are assigned level in the Project Navigator to create a full representation at any specific levels in A D T Figure 1.5. Project Navigator - ADT's hierarchical mechanism to group drawings vertically in ADT Project Navigator Style Manager Documentation Objects (User-defined styles and definitions for extracted attributes) Architectural Objects (Predefined styles and definitions to assign for one type of object in ADT) Multi-purpose Objects Predefined styles and definitions to assign for one type of object in ADT) Figure 1.6. Conceptual mechanism for attaching attributes to objects in ADT 63 User-defined architectural objects' styles mm m » & & /j 4 Ta T 1 -My 1st OTafMANQR PROJECT - Q| Architectural Objects * 9 Curtate wad Styles « P C u r t a n W a l Unit Styles * \ | Door styles t> f*| Dow/V/mdow Assembly Styles ti | 1 Railing Styles * » # R o o f Siab Edge Styles f # R o o f S a b Styles r »» Edge Styles • «** Stab Styles i ' * SpaceS ty les * # S t a r Styles « & S t a r Winder 5 r y e s •I ^ Structural Member Snap* Definitions ;*t | Str jctural Member Styies t) ~j| W a l Cleanup Group Defimbom f « W a l Endcap Styles * 9 W a l ModhVr Styles * W a l Operang Endcap Styles i 91 W a l Styles | i CMU-190 1 ! Wk cot_covers 1 :| Concrete Core 8 Concrete Perimeter w a l Core Bride W a l iPounds ton W a l Parapet Concrete Wat Perimeter W a l S t a r Concrete Core Standard |)| JottXjm To*et_Screen m W a l Foundation Washbaa r .Counter _ M B Window Styles * (_J Doo jmer t abor Objects fi Cl Mutt-Purpose Objects * i(| A E C Polygon S t y e s *vv Oassrffcabor Defir t tons * fP Layer Key Styles • "J? Mask Block Definitions +i W- Mass Element Styles r ConTpcnerts Matenas Encicaps . G p e n r i § Er-dcap* Qasafoat ion* : Display P-opertej : Vsrson History Concrete Core Descrptjcn £a* the pnjperty set data tor the atyte: "~. Area-LeftGross *X: Area-PJantSross ~£l Concretevotume 'tv FamworKa/ea " i \ lave* Tt Length H> Level U ObjecCD \i ReiMbrceSteeWeisht Style U Volunw-NetWIIhModt 4>i Select Keynote... * * Autornaac Property Automatic Property " Automatic Property "* Automatic Property * * Automate Property " Automatic Property "No project* * * Automatic Property • * * Automaac Property Concrete Core ™ AutoreaOc Property *™ Automatic Property Not av3il8bi* i Notavariabta i Not * * sbw 1 Notavailabi* i NotsvafeciJli Not available?* Not avaiiai?* I Not avsdabw I NotavariabK i Not avwJabjf i Drawing Sorted Stytes_$Tadwg Pxpoty S a t o . . . | User-defined documentation objects are used to defined attributes of architectural objects and assigned to them wall Stylet Cancel i Apply CorKreteCore Figure 1.7 Mapping of Documentation object onto Architectural objects to attach attributes Level* PR Project UPPERCRUST MANOR - BASE PROJECT SCHEDULE - LS1 Location Set Physical L oca Con Set GLOB Location Global project iocaoon SITE Location Site at ground level FDN Location Foundation level PA.RKADE Location Parkade level GFLR Location Ground floor 2 Location Second floor Locabon Thrd Soar Location Fourth floor Locabon Fifth floor Location Sxth floor Location Mechanical penthouse t root Location Penthouse roof t j LS2 Location Set Procurement sequence I*} 01 System Foundation system S i 02 System Structural system + 03 System Endosure system i i i 04 System Mechanical system 05 System Electncal system '+' 06 System Vertical transportation system * 07 System Interior partitiorsng/ceihnQ systgem + 08 System Intenor finshmg system ;+.: 09 System Landscaping system 3 •4 5 6 MPHRF RFMPH Heme Floor Elevahoi Ftoor to Fwor Height i S D e a c n p t a i 6T-1- y - r RFMPH Penhouse foot I sr*r M M H F Mecnsnlcal Penhouse a R r o t $e ar .n- ; » 6W Ftoor w-r » - r : s 5th Floor 2ff-9- tr 4 4th Floor «p3 1»-2- » - r I J 3rd Floor *jj|2 * - r ?-r 2 2 n O = » o r M l T r-r oan Crountl Floor -9"-6- M r ?AR*42£ Packade -9-^-I r I FDM Founoation 0 Autc-Adjust Elevation x Figure 1.8. Equivalent of location set in REPCON and in ADT 64 ar-ea # Q • f .i i a i r i I 'fix List of available group of predefined styles in A D T for architectural objects - My 1st tnai-MANOR PROJECT fl| StytesjSTrj,dws _ Architectural Objects i {H Curtain Wall Styles $ SI Curtain Wall Unit Styles 1 I § Doer Styles •p- H Door/Window Assembly Styles + ! I Railing Styles m J f Roof Slab Edge Styles S JJ* Roof Slab Styles ,tj m* Slab edge Styles Slab Styles Space Styles i jf Stair Styles *s H Statr Winder Styles SB >|P Structural Member Shape Definitions * • | Structural Member Styles +• j toaij Cleanup Group Definitions %M Wa8£ndcap5tyies | 3 H Waft Modifier Styles iii Ik Wall Opening Endcap Styles \^P f | Wall Styles •fe J | Window Styles -fc Qj Documentation Objects +: JJ Multi-Purpose Objects -:. j|P 2nd PL structural system.dwg f Qj ArcNtecturai Objects +s Qj Documentation Objects i D Wt-Purpose Objects +• 0 Drawing Ldwg m Style MiCMU-190 B coLcovwt 11 Concrete Cofe ft Concrete Perimeter wall • Core Brick Wall ifi Foundation Wal Parapet Concrete WaH S J Perimeter WaH ^ Stair Concrete Core 13 Standard BiToJet_Ptn j i ) Toilel_Screen , W 2 H Wall Foundation IS Washbasin_Counter_M Description 190mm CM U WaH Variable Width Brick Wall Toilet Stall Partition Urinal Screen Stud layer GWB(NR) Washbasin counter w/S plash OK Ignore During Standards Syn. No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No List of user-defined wall styles Apply Help Dra'Asng Sorted Stytes_STO.d*'8 I Styles Figure 1.9. Style Manager - User-defined styles Definition 65 "^Area - Gross o *'.\Area -Net 1 ' t S Baseline Fasaa Prafse c "^Baseline Length n I9 , ""^Sasefine Overhang u 1 XSaselne Soffit PrcfSe • l^Cotor • 1 XCofor - Text • - 1 Description • : : I V , Description from Style • Documents ^Documents from Style C I '^T, Elevation - High i i XSevaoon - Low Li 1 hancile n 1 ^Hyperlink • : 1 "^ v layer • ^Lsnetype • M X,Non-Baseline Fasoa Profile G M t^Non-Baseline Length §11 X^on-6ase!ine Overhang O 11 X Non-Baseline Soff t Profile f«otes U X Notes from Style Li Object ID n "5S, Object Type • Perimeter D "^fMch G • • % <3nn» n V OK Cancel | He* Figure 1.10. Example of automatic attributes in ADT * 4 * List of attributes available from the associated style 4X2.3? Associated style with selected objects Selected 3D Wall Objects in A D T Figure 1.11. Objects are assigned styles with user-defined attributes 66 • a g & p- % i m * a &• > r • ; *$» i i ^ ^ i i - ^ L S / / x * o a r 0 ^ « 2 > o 3 : J — — B *^»" 3 E i — — B5*~a*» | S&LCtjraf Member Associated style Layer fj PounB! Style | Cdumn 1*2 Merber t.,, Column Dfeiensons a start offset a* 0 End of%<t 0* C logical!*.... a'-io" E Rot 270. GO Justify Mrfde Center JusWyu«...Ye* Section of the style l oca ton Starters... : * Start pet... ; 240ff-9 9/32* Startpoi. . . 0' E n d o a n t X MSf-I y-C End point Y 2->O0'-99/3r End pant Z ff-10* . o a i s o r on node 4 % Figure 1.12. Structural members - Columns styles 67 Name: FwmworkArea [ZJ Use formula lor desaipbon Foimulac Formula of the formwork area of the wall foundation Enter Sample Values: Property j Value " \ [Area-LeftNet] Sample X [Area-Ft.ghrNet] Sample [Height] Sample X [Width] Sample Format Standard Standard Standard Standard Data type Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic r List of automatic attributes needed to form the formula Insert Property Definitions: i a a 1 ~ ~ ! m S Brick WaH Style ! * M Concrete Wal I " S3 <«<)H foundation X Aiea-LeftNet X Aiea-RightNet ConcreteVolume X FormworkArea[Setf] X Handle X Height X Length % Level X ObjecHD Insert VBSciip* code: 1 + Miscellaneous I Constants I M Functions i 'ii Keywords i -i Methods i M Objects and Collections j * Operators | m Statements A OK Cancel Help Figure 1.13. Required attributes for foundation defined by users in ADT PR Project IPPERCRUST MANOR - BASE PROJECT SCHEDULE -: LSI Location Set Physical Location Set GLOB Location Glooaf project iocation SITE Location Site at ground ievei FDN Locabon Fo r^xJatton level . PARKADE Location Parkade level GRR iQQfon Ground fbor 2 locai^ 'seco^ tloor mm 3 Location Third fbor '•••4 Location Fourth floor • 5 Location Fifth SOOT 6 Location Sixth Soor MPHIRF Location Mechanicai penthouse Sroof RFMPH Locscon Penthouse roof i*i LS2 Location Set Procurement sequence !+> 01 System Foundabon system + 02 System Structural system +! 03 System Erxtosure system •il-04 System Mechanics system * 05 System Bectricai system + 06 System Vertical transports ton system * 07 System Interior petitioning/ceiling systgem + 08 System Interior fireshing system Attrfoutes Values; Standard PCBS Recotdi Activities Paydem, j Quafc^Matl Changes R«kii«ue*7E<ili. Path PR.LS1. Coda- a DesCTipfort: jSecond Hoot Typo. | . Attribute __ -Dfsswiption I. Oan B/Q/i Gross area Y. 0 H2 Working aiea Y. Q HZ Interstory height Y. 0 It Shape Y. L f«? Inherit attribute oedration from above level Add | Delete I « I QK Figure 1.14 Definition of locations and their attributes in REPCON 6 8 69 J <* Q » » 1 1 A i is ? m- m ^ My 1st tnal-WAfsOft PROJECT fcj § ^ Stytes_Sra,da<g t | H Curt*i Wail Styles Si IB Curtain Wag Unit Styles .±i jf | Door Styles !* "1*1 DoorA i^ndow Assembly Stytes * i; ! Ra&no. Styles 1 Jf Roo* Slab Edge Stytes ! ;M-0 Roof Sab Stytes i «t* Slab Edge Styies : («• *** Sab Styles I C*-vXi Space Stytes t # Stair Styies | $ P Statr Winder Stytes * -|p Structural Member Shape Defiffltiorw * | Structural Member Styies Wal Cleanup Group Defections * ffl Wal! Endcap Styles *i H WafHtorfaV Stytes §*--^ WaH Opening Endear* Stytes * H Wal Styies £ $ Window Styles 9-Q Documentation Objects "\ *p| 2D Section Elevation Styles * |p| AEC DHTsenston Stytes Area Group Styles i l I I Styies | | Cafciatibn Modifier Styles &•"»•:: Display Theme Stytes ^ ^ B gp ^ Group Templates ;.ti j | | Narne Definitions •fe-lab Property Data formats + Property Set Defhfeons ^ Schedule Table Stytes iss r*i| MulS-Pijrpose Objects ^ i l H AEC Polygon Styles Ciassmcation Delations +: ]! layer Key Stytes I -fi. Masfc Stock Demons •£ Wl Mass Sement Stytes i f t S Material Definitions •& 5! Multi-view Block Definitions Proftes £P 2nd Fi structural system.cVg Style Type (SI Cu tar Wal Styles 9 Curtar Wal Unt Styles 11 Door Styles ilOoor AVindovv Assembly Styles ! (Railing Styles af Roof Stab Edge Styles *f Roof Sab Styles «*-Stab Edge Styles — Sab Styles S Space Styles # Star Styles l&J Star Winder Styles ^Structural Member Shape Defni,. I Structural Member Stytes '^ fl Wal Cleanup Group Definitions • Wal Erdcap Styies • Wal Modifier Styles kk Wal Opening Endcap Styles • wal Styles S Wndow Styles List of Architectural objects available in A D T List of Documentation objects available in A D T Cancel Apply Help Drawing Sorted Styles_Sip,djsg Figure 1.16. Style Manager - ADT's mechanism for controlling predefined and user-defined 3D CAD objects styles 70 Figure 1.17. Snapshot at the end of November 2003 Figure 1.19. Snapshot at the end of January 2004 Figure 1.21. Snapshot at the end of March 2004 Figure 1.23. Snapshot at the end of May 2004 Figure 1.25. Snapshot at the end of July 2004 75 APPENDIX II PRODUCT AND PROCESS VIEW IN REPCON Project UPPERCRUST MANOR - BASE PROJECT SCHEDULE LSI Locaton Set Physical Location Set GLOB Location Global project location STTE Location Site at ground level FDN Location Foundation level PARKAOE Location Parkade level GFLR Location Ground floor 2 Location Second floor 3 Location Third floor 4 Location Fourth floor 5 Location Fifth floor 6 Location Sixth floor MPHRF Location Mechanical penthouse Sroof RFMPH Location Penthouse roof LS2 Location Set Procurement sequence 01 System Foundation system 01 Subsystem Substructure structural system H 02 Subsystem Superstructure structural system :-; 01 Element Vertjcals 01 Subelement Columns 02 Subelement Interior walls 03 Subelement Core 04 Subelement Stars 02 Element Slabs 03 System Enclosure system 04 System Mechanical system 05 System Electrical system 06 System Vertical transportation system 07 System Interior pardtiorang/ceiling systgem 03 System Interior finishing system 09 System Landscaping system A«*uies j Vs*»s| Standard PCBS Records i Activities; Pay items] BualsrMgtl Changes] Risklssuesj ftojootBeJliiJ Pallv PB.LSt. Code: f| Type' f~' Altrkute Descriptor* JSecond floor Description Gross area Working area Interslory height Shape Byq/L Unit 0 ft2 112 It y Inhent attribute definition Item above level ~J Cancel j Figure II. 1. Product View - Physical component breakdown Structure including Location sets and their attributes in REPCON (6 Storey Version) 76 08 09 10 - 11 01 02  01 02 03 05 12 13 .- 01 Process View - Activity List interface C o d e Descr ipt ion T y p e 01 j Receipt of Notice to Proceed Start Milestone 02 Mobilize 4 dear site Ordered 03 i Bulk excavate substructure Ordered 04 | Shotaele shoring Ordered 05 I Excavate wal, core, column footings Ordered 051 i Excavate crane footing Ordered - 0 6 j Build wal core column, crane foofini Ordered 01 F/P/S perimeter wal footings Ordered 02 Reinforce perimeter wall footings Ordered 03 F/P/S column footings Ordered 04 j Rertorce column footings Ordered 05 | F/P/S core footing Ordered 06 i Reinforce core footing Ordered 07 F/P/S crane footing Ordered 08 Reinforce 4 set crane footing anchor: Ordered - 07 | Build substructure verticals Ordered 01 ! F/P/S penmeter walls Ordered 02 Reinforce perimeter walls Ordered 03 F/P/S columns 04 | Reinforce columns 05 | F/P/S core • 05 Fteinforce core 07 I F/P/S stairs 08 i Reinforce stairs Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Badcfi footings, prepare SOG Ordered Dampproof penmeter substructure WJ Ordered Construct slab on grade Reinforce SOG Place 4 finish SOG Construct ground floor slab Form ground floor slab Rerforce ground floor slab Place electrical conduit in slab Place mechanical sleeving in slab Place 4 finish GFLR slab Backfill external penmeter of substruc Ordered Build superstructure Derived Build superstructure verticals Ordered F/P/S columns Ordered Reinforce columns Ordered F/P/S core Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered C a t o n d a r R e s p o r m b « y C o d B ^ ^ S u b p r o j e d Phs m, S u b p K a t e 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor j | " | j 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar T001 Excavation 4 Shoring 1 Default Calendar TSG1 Excavat-on 4 Shoring 1 Default Calendar T001 Excavation 4 Shoring 1 Default Calendar TO01 Excavation 4 Shoring 1 Default Calendar GQ01 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 DefauS Calendar T00S Rebar 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar TOGS Rebar 1 n ^ ^ f ^ ^ ^ ^ ^yjr^ J=^ - 1g a >iJi^ ijB 1*«k-^^^_ Activity DaU/Production Data Path: 13,01. Code: j|01 Type: JOrdeTed Descripiion: jF/P/S columns J RespomtoityCode: JG001 Cat |1 FS: |0 Subproiect j Phase, j Quantity Unit j Governing Resource: ~T] Subohastt Descriptor Start Location Frtsh Locabo W. Sk Duatkyvloc QuanWy/L Average F Average Pro Calculatec r^ Qrjrjrjrjrj 1 o 7 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 00 2 1 0 5 0 00 0.00 0 00 3 1 0 4 0.00 0 00 0.00 4 6 1 0 3 0 00 0 00 0.00 Use Location Ptofie Use Calculated Duration Add Row Delete Row Caned 1 DefaL* Calendar 1 Default Calendar 1 Default Calendar 1 Default Calendar 1 Default Calendar 1 DefauS Calendar 1 Default Calendar 1 Defau( Calendar T015 Mechanical T0Q3 Concrete Placing 4 Finishing T0Q1 Excavation 4 Shonng G001 General Contractor G001 General Contractor G001 General Contractor T006 Rebar G001 General Contractor Figure II.2 Process View - Activity List with Activity Data windows showing linkages between activities and Locations in PCBS - Part 1 77 'ft fcocte Process View - Activity List Interface 14 01 02 15 IS 161 1S2 17 18 19 20 01 02 21 22 23 24 25 : 2$ 01 02 03 04 06 28 29 01 02 03 30 31 40 41 42 43 44 Description Reinforce slab Place electrical conduit in slab Place mechanical sleeving in slab Place a finish slab Erect, use. dismantle crane Erect crane Dismantle crane Buiid masonry walls Build exterior brick facade Ered scaffolding for brickwork Dismantle scaffolding InstaB interior/exterior wall studding install exterior sheathing Insta! exterior windows 4 doors instaS drywall Board drywall Tape4fldrywa8 I Instal elevator rails InstaS elevator cabs 4 equipment root | Rough-in horizontal plumbing/fire sysl Rough-in vertical plumbing/fire syster Rough-in electrtcal system Instal Weriorfinishes Paint out each location : InstaB WcheriAathroom/!aundry cab : Install floor coverings of all types ; Instal appliances I Instal window covenngs ; finish electnca! work ; Install roofing ; Hard 1 soft landscaping I Hard landscaping - concrete planters i Waterproofing of exterior ground flora I Soft landscaping - planting Cleanup 4 rectify deficiencies Obtain occupancy permi Procure windows 4 doors Procure elevator rails Procure elevator cab Procure electrical fixtures Procure reinforcing trade T y p e Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Denved Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Denved Continuous Shadow Continuous Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Denved Continuous Ordered Ordered Ordered Denved Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Ordered Calendar Responsibility Code 1 Defauft Calendar T0O6 Rebar 1 Default Calendar T0:S Electrical 1 Default Calendar T015 Mechanical 1 Default Calendar T0G3 Concrete Placing 4 Finishing 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Defaut Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar T004 Masonry 1 Def ault Calendar T004 Masonry 1 Defau( Calendar T004 Masonry 1 Default Calendar T004 Masonry 1 rw-a..» r'^i^.w-.. TPifSQ rir.«..3ll Subprofecf P h a s e S u b p h a s e 1 Default Calendar T005 Roofing 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor 1 Default Calendar T010 Doors 4 Windows 1 Default Calendar T014 Bevators 1 Default Calendar T014 Bevators 1 Default Calendar T016 Electrical 1 Default Calendar G001 General Contractor Figure II.3 Process View - Activity List with activity data windows showing the linkages between activities and Physical components in PCBS - Part 2 78 011 Start ivilcstOTi I aecriot 8* Katie* to Pnxatd | SWi | u*r»«rit contractor Aet/Sdi'carlyt O Figure II.4. Linear Planning Schedule with physical locations for the project 7 9 Oil *ia '10.31 19.02 -11 12 13 •is. m. *1 s 13.32 42 IS 43 "17 •31 -IS 161 21 UM ^rReceipt of notice to Proceed srTE jfJKd311i2e clear site B23P Q TENDER LVsM EV/4C procure reinforcing trade PAWC4DE • Jp jBj ] Bulk exca.ate substructure PMRJDt H M H I shotcrete shoring FEKi fJJJ Excavate wall, core, coluiin footings | FD* j Excavate crane footing Ffj« MK^M Build wall*, care, column, crane footings a.ce « | 1 "' 1 PfltKWE M H | B u ^ d substructure verticals | SDMt | \ \ \ ' ^ F4SR. *£r*ct, use, dismantle crane DEL rWNProciire mn&tm ' soors FDh §|Backfil l footings, prepare SOG P4RKA0E g rjanpproof perimeter substructure m i l s P^ RKjiDE | Construct slab on grade mMKtBt | Reinforce SOG | j P,MtKK>E | Place finish SOG GFLR lgM\Construct ground floor slab P4R.&*D£ f x 3 Backfil l external perimeter of' substructure GFLR. 9 « H sowsrssa S O R « t E S S ESS3 N'PHPF mm Build superstructure | N P M R F | Build superstructure verticals PaWOlOf g3 MR K W . W M DEL fc^ Procure elevator rai ls GFLR E 3 IIS ' H « Q K P H R F g ^ ^ ^ - T n electrical system • i ;|«n MPHRF J B u i l d superstructure slabs SORaw p3 j DEL [jj] procure elevator cab | SFLRJQ PWXADE f3 SFLRI Z Q 5 r 3 j 4 J 5S E3 9 5 1 5 |]Bui1<i sis airy tails K P H R F Q Rough- in v e r t i c a l p l un s s i ng / f i r e systess p i p i n g "E3 *63 P.4RKHDE [ C T 2 E 3 SFLR E3 5 p ; O NPhRF j Rough-in horizontal p!uffO'ing/fire systefs pipir: DEL l \ W j Procure electrical fixtures 3=LR. 3 gj 2 E3 S T L R g 4 E 3 6 M ins ta l l interior/exterior wall studding >• 5 I • * B » J Install exterior sheathing G F L R f j I B Jt I \Z £CJ 4 fj 6 | : Install exterior endows doors' | SITE [ \ \ \ | Erect scaffolding for brickwork \ «v_j_ »*CH NOVEMBER | DECEMBER 2 » j ' 4PR.n. ; MAY 2004 Ol j start milestone | R.eceipt of Notice to Proceed | GOQl | General contractor A c t / s c h / E a r l y ; C 290CT33 7:30aa ) Figure II.5. Bar Chart Schedule of the project - Part 1 80 m 29 29,01 16 •28 22 20 14.02 •20. 02 162 •26.08 29.02 •JO 29.01 -26.0} •16.04 26.05 •31 2 I Hard soft Tanascap-na Hard lands ciama - concrete planters, side*alks 4 E3 « p t MPHRF g Build exterior brick f, MPHRF WtM Install roof ino MPHRF r \ V l J a=LR LVW) Install elevator cabs eauipment room SFLR S 2 6 M N M H M Sis t a l l j r . - . . a l l JH 4 I <7LFt • : • 5 2 m 4 • « •Board drywal O.0B | Dismantle crane • • • 4 • • • Tape f i l l dr»vall install interior finishes nt out each location 2 T .« • : • : • WPMRF | Pa^  SITE FJ Dismantle scaffoldinq PARKABE E3 SFL.ll | 3 | S | 2 | - • 6 I iWHUI | Finish electrical work SITE S3 wterproofino of exterior around floor slab PAwofJE rsvql 2 • 4 mm « • C F L R • 3 B|Ts • I NPHRF | Cleanup rectify deficiencies 2 B|: 4 • 6 • Install kitchen/bathroom/laundrv cabinets/coun SITE IV\\|Soft landscaping - planting wi m\ * m s • 2 | H - M M • • Install floor coverings of all types v. m 3 • 5 • i 2 I 4 • 6 • install appliances S^ LR f^ 3 3 Q 5 KJ ! 2 • + • p E3 0»t i l l window coverings O.0G •Obtain occupancy permit AKY FEBRUARY NAROl APRIL [ MAY j 3WE 2004 01 | Start milestone | Receipt of Notice to Proceed | G001 | General Contractor Act/Sct»/E»rly: C 20OCTO3 7s30ai» ) Figure II.6. Bar Chart Schedule of the project - Part 2 SI 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0228820/manifest

Comment

Related Items