Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

36

Scheduling model for repetitive construction processes for high-rise buildings


Kyuman Cho, Taehoon Hong, and Changtaek Hyun

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

Abstract: In a high-rise building project that involves many repetitive construction processes, the effective control of such repetitive construction processes is a key factor in the success of the project. Unlike the existing scheduling methods for repetitive construction processes, a scheduling model that considers (i) the flexible job logic of the multiple work tasks that comprise a construction process and (ii) the productivity of the construction equipment and labor was developed in this paper. Various theories and algorithms such as the linking dummy, the linear scheduling method, and the production rate, were implemented in the development of the model. A scheduling model was then proposed based on such theories and algorithms and on a mathematical formula. The proposed model was verified by applying it to core wall construction, a key repetitive process in a high-rise building project. Verification showed that the developed model exhibited over 90% reliability. It is expected that the proposed model will allow effective scheduling for repetitive construction processes with flexible job logic. Key words: scheduling, mathematical models, productivity, high-rise buildings, core walls. Resume : Un projet dimmeuble de grande hauteur impliquant plusieurs procedes de construction repetitifs, le controle ef ` ` ficace de ces procedes de construction repetitifs est un facteur cle du succes de ce projet. Contrairement aux methodes a ` calendriers existantes pour les procedes de construction repetitifs, un modele de calendrier qui tient compte de (i) la lo gique demploi flexible pour des taches de travail multiples qui comprennent un procede de construction et (ii) de la pro ductivite des equipements et de la main-duvre de construction a ete developpe dans cet article. Diverses theories et divers algorithmes, tels que les liens vides, la methode de calendrier lineaire et le taux de production, ont ete implantes ` ` lors du developpement du modele. Un modele de calendrier a ensuite ete propose base sur de tels algorithmes et theories ` et sur une formule mathematique. Le modele propose a ete verifie en lutilisant pour la construction dun mur ecran, un ` procede repetitif cle dans un projet dimmeuble de grande hauteur. Une verification a indique que le modele developpe ` presentait une fiabilite de plus de 90 %. Le modele propose devrait permettre un calendrier efficace pour les procedes de construction repetitifs avec une logique demploi flexible. ` Mots-cles : calendrier, modeles mathematiques, productivite, immeubles de grande hauteur, murs ecrans. [Traduit par la Redaction]

Introduction
Efficient scheduling for repetitive construction processes is an important factor in ensuring the success of a project. Many researchers have proposed various types of scheduling models for repetitive construction processes. Kavanagh (1985) developed a network diagram of repetitive construction projects by using the information generated by the repetitive process and nonrepetitive process of repetitive construction projects. This study performed a simulation acReceived 8 March 2010. Revision accepted 20 October 2010. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on 16 November 2010. K. Cho. Division of Construction Engineering and Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. T. Hong.1 Department of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. C. Hyun. Department of Architectural Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea. Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 May 2011.
1Corresponding

author (e-mail: hong7@yonsei.ac.kr).

cording to the change of resources in the overall network. Reda (1990) proposed a scheduling model for repetitive constructions using a graphical and analytical technique to resolve the problems that network-based scheduling techniques have. Moselhi and El-Rayes (1993) developed a scheduling model by which time and cost optimization by crew formation could be achieved in repetitive construction projects. El-Rayes and Moselhi (1998) also developed a scheduling technique with which continuity of labor resource on repetitive activities could be achieved. El-Rayes (2001) attempted to achieve an object-oriented scheduling of repetitive construction projects. In this study, the scheduling was performed on repetitive and nonrepetitive activities, which constructed objects, by using labor resource information. Meanwhile, Hyari and El-Rayes (2006), aiming at maximizing resource continuity and minimizing project duration, developed a scheduling model that could provide the user with optimal construction plans. Fan and Tserng (2006) developed an object-oriented scheduling model for repetitive projects. This model proposed a technique that could easily process the logical sequence of various activities with a work continuity maintenance module and a scheduling module, which construct repetitive construction projects. While existing studies often focused on project unit-based models,
Published by NRC Research Press

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38: 3648 (2011)

doi:10.1139/L10-108

Cho et al.

37

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

Huang and Sun (2006) developed a non-unit-based scheduling model for repetitive construction projects. By grouping activities, they aimed at developing an effective scheduling model based on the logical relationship and resources among groups. These studies have attempted to propose a scheduling model for the entire project, resulting in the development of a scheduling model in a higher level (i.e., focusing on work package or elemental level). In actual construction sites, however, various methods are considered and exercised to increase productivity. Among the various methods, the existing construction process may often be replanned or reorganized for various reasons, such as for shortening construction duration or facilitating efficient use of lifting equipment. In other words, dynamic changes in paralleling, superimposing and dividing work tasks occur frequently through various combinations of work tasks that make up each repetitive construction process. Since it is difficult to predict such flexible changes in scheduling, especially with existing scheduling models, a method is required to schedule a construction project in a more microscopic level than existing scheduling models. A crucial characteristic of existing scheduling models is the fact that they are based on resources. However, most existing studies, in consideration of resources, have attempted to execute a scheduling based on changes in the number of labor; few studies have considered construction equipment, which greatly affect construction productivity. Furthermore, most existing scheduling methods based on labor resource do not consider the loss of construction productivity caused by the increase in the number of labor (e.g., loss of productivity caused by interruption or congestion due to increased labor resource). Therefore, this study developed a scheduling model that can offer a flexible combination of work tasks based on the change in actual construction site, that is, on a microscopic level (i.e., repetitive processes level) instead of the whole project level. Moreover, the proposed scheduling model could consider not only the idle time of labor resources but also the use of equipment resource. Meanwhile, this research is not an attempt to improve the line of balance (LOB) but an attempt to develop an alternative solution to the problems encountered in repetitive scheduling. Scheduling model with flexible combinations of multiple work tasks Scheduling concept for repetitive construction processes A scheduling model for repetitive processes can be expressed using the linear scheduling method (LSM) (Harmelink and Rowings 1998; Reda 1990; Yamin and Harmelink 2001). As shown in Fig. 1, LSM features the relation between work area and duration: Fig. 1a represents the repetitive processes that comprise a construction project; Fig. 1b shows that the repetitive processes consist of each work task. A work task is similar, in a wider sense, to an activity in the critical path method (CPM). However, in this study, a work task refers to the smallest task unit by which work is divided according to the type of labor (Halpin and Riggs 1992). As shown in the Type A-Sequential repetitive process in Fig. 2 and Fig. 1b, traditional construction projects con-

sist of work tasks in which the construction processes are connected linearly. In other words, work task a_1, for example, which was completed on the nth floor, can be resumed on the n+1th floor only after work tasks 2, 3, and 4 are completed. However, work tasks of recent construction projects do not usually follow this traditional sequential process for shortening the construction duration and maximizing productivity. As shown in Type B-overlapped repetitive process of Fig. 2, work tasks often overlap and are parallel with one another. Meanwhile, in cases where each task is scheduled individually as an activity on its own duration, the relationship such as overlapping may not occur. Based on the above observation, the cycle time of repetitive process (i.e., construction time of the repetitive construction process for one cycle) can be calculated as the sum of the duration of work tasks that comprise a repetitive construction process. However, these work tasks can overlap and have a lag time, according to needs in terms of construction duration or circumstances in the construction site. In other words, the cycle time of the repetitive process is the sum of the duration of each work task, considering the correlation effects (i.e., relationship) between work tasks. Therefore, if process A has i work tasks, the cycle time for the one-story construction can be expressed in eq. [1], as shown below: 1 CTA
i X n1

f D a

where CTA = cycle time of repetitive process A; f(D) = function of duration for work task n on process A; a = time due to correlation effects among work tasks. Meanwhile, as shown in Fig. 1a, the slope of oblique lines (i.e., f(g)A, f(g)B, and f(g)C) changes depending on the amount of labor and equipment input to a process, which is called a resource-driven scheduling factor. On the other hand, the parallel lines to the x axis (i.e., f(d)A, f(d)B, and f(d)C) indicate an absolutely necessary time for certain tasks, regardless of the amount of labor or equipment input, which are called non-resource-driven scheduling factors. For example, the quantity of work by concrete labor in concrete placing changes according to the number of labor or equipment inputted to the task. Therefore, this task becomes a resourcedriven factor. Concrete curing, on the other hand, requires a certain time regardless of the amount of resource. It is, therefore, a non-resource-driven scheduling factor. Any estimation of cycle time of the repetitive process makes it necessary to consider the existence and size of these resourceor non-resource-driven factors for each work task. Thus, the duration of each work task can be calculated by the resource- and non-resource-based scheduling factors. In other words, if work task n, one of the work tasks of process A, has the labor and equipment resource, the duration of work task n is defined by the following eq. [2]: 2 f D f g f d

where f(g) = function of resource scheduling factor and f(d) = function of nonresource scheduling factor. As aforementioned, this study defines a work task as the minimum work unit of a repetitive process that has more
Published by NRC Research Press

38 Fig. 1. Linear scheduling method for repetitive construction process.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

than one equipment and labor on one material. Most work tasks can be categorized according to this definition, and according to the types of work tasks, they can either be equipment or labor or both. That is, the material moved horizontally or vertically by the equipment arrives at a working area and is installed by labor. Once the delivery and installation of material on the nth floor is complete, the chemical or physical changes in the material (i.e., non-resource-driven scheduling factor (f(d)) in eq. [2] require time before another work task on the n+1th floor begins. Therefore, the resource-driven scheduling factor in eq. [2] can be expressed by dividing it into equipment and labor scheduling factors. The resource-driven factor of the duration of work task n can be subdivided into delivery time by equipment and the install time by labor, as shown in eq. [3]:

f g f z f h

where f(z) = function of equipment resource scheduling factor and f(h) = function of labor resource scheduling factor. Production rate The non-resource-driven scheduling factor (i.e., f(d)) in eq. [2] is the absolute time for the chemical or physical changes in the material. Thus, the scheduling factor according to the equipment and labor input (i.e., f(z) and f(h)) has an important effect on determining the duration of work task. As shown in eq. [4], the delivery time by equipment f(z) can be expressed by the quantity of material (Qn), divided by the multiplication of the number of equipment (Ne) and the production rate per one equipment (l). Likewise, the
Published by NRC Research Press

Cho et al. Fig. 2. Type of repetitive construction process.

39

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

install time by labor f(h) can be expressed by the quantity of material (Qn), divided by the multiplication of the number of labor (Nl) and the production rate per one labor (m) as shown in eq. [5]. 4 f z Qn l Ne Qn m Nl

f h

labor (Halpin and Riggs 1992; Reda 1990; Schaufelberger 1999). This can also be expressed by how much equipment or labor can function in a given duration, and l and m in eqs. [4] and [5] can be converted into eqs. [6] and [7]. The term l can be expressed as the result of the quantity of material (Qn) that comprise work task n, divided by the equipment work hours (equip._hours). Likewise, m can be expressed as the result of the quantity of material, divided by the labor work hours (labor_hours). 6 l Qn equip: hours Qn labor hours
Published by NRC Research Press

where Qn = quantity of material for work task n; l and m = production rate per one equipment and labor; Ne and Nl = number of equipment and labor, respectively. Each production rate (l and m) indicates how long it takes to handle a material of work task by equipment and

40

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011 Fig. 3. Relationship between labor number and production rate.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

In eq. [7], the production rate per one labor m is a deterministic value. However, this m value is largely affected by varieties of factors, including adverse weather, scheduled overtime, congestion, low worker motivation, etc. These factors lead to labor productivity loss. Despite these factors, productivity loss in this study was considered a factor that can be estimated and controlled. That is, the increase in labor input causes labor interruption and congestion among labor resources, resulting in a decrease in the m value. Therefore, instead of the m value defined in eq. [7], a new production rate considering labor productivity loss, which resulted from labor interruption and congestion, is required. Labor productivity loss Generally, the relationship between the number of labor resource and the production rate per one labor resource (m) is expressed by a curvilinear function that converges toward the threshold value, shown in Fig. 3 (Halpin and Riggs 1992; Sanders and Thomas 1993; Sonmez and Rowings 1998). Therefore, this relationship can be expressed by a logarithmic function or an exponential function, shown in eq. [8]. 8 m f n alog n b or m f n c en d

ment and that of the labor must be considered, as shown in eq. [11]. 11
f D 8 > > < Qn Qn b f d Zn > >l Ne > > ; : f n dn
1

where f(n) = function of production rate; n = number of labor; a, b, c, and d = constants. Also, the result of the integral of the logarithmic function f(n) by the x-axis, shown in Fig. 3 in which the x-axis is the number of labor and the yaxis is the production rate per one labor, indicates the quantity of work. In other words, the quantity of work by n number of labor can be expressed by eq. [9]. Zn 9 f Q f n dn
1

9 > > =

Meanwhile, the production rate per one labor resource (yaxis) is the quantity of work per total labor work hours, and the quantity of work calculated by eq. [9] indicates the production amount by n number of labor resource per unit time. Therefore, the division of Qn (i.e., quantity of material) assigned to each work task by the quantity of work per unit time, which can be calculated by eq. [9], results in the labor working time it takes for n number of labor resource to complete Qn. As such, eq. [5] can be expressed by eq. [10]. 10 f h Z
1

Any consideration of the correlation effects should be based on the following two incidents: if the duration of the equipment and labor that perform a work task are defined by De and Dl, and if these two elements do not overlap (i.e., De \ Dl f), the b value in eq. [11] is either 0 or + of the lag time between the working durations of the two elements, but if the two elements overlap (i.e., De \ Dl 6 f), the b value in eq. [11] will be given by the following eq. [12]: 12
f D 8 > > < Qn Qn Zn >l Ne > : f n dn
1

9 > > = De \ Dl f d > > ;

Qn
n

f n dn

Correlation effects between equipment and labor Using eqs. [4] to [10], the working time of the equipment and labor related to each work task could be calculated. Meanwhile, the equipment and labor can be operated either simultaneously or sequentially, depending on the type of work task. In other words, the equipment and labor may be operated simultaneously during concrete pouring but may not overlap in other work tasks. Therefore, when calculating the duration of a work task, the correlation effects (i.e., the b value in eq. [11]) between the working time of the equip-

Meanwhile, as in eq. [12], if the equipment and labor work at the same time, the difference between the production rate per one labor and the production rate per piece of equipment calculated by eqs. [6] and [8] causes the difference in the quantity of work. This, in turn, causes idle time. Figure 4a shows the relation between equipment and labor in terms of the quantity of work, whereas Fig. 4b shows Fig. 4a in three dimensions projected onto a two-dimension plane by labor number and quantity of work. These give a more efficient explanation of this relation. As shown in Fig. 4a, with the input of equipment e1, the quantity of work becomes f(z)1. If n1 of labor is input, the quantity of work f(h)1 can be performed, and at this point, the relation of f(z)1 > f(h)1 causes the idle time of equipment. Conversely, if n2 of labor and e1 of equipment are inputted, the relation between each quantity of work becomes f(h)2 > f(z)1, causing idle time of labor. In other words, depending on the quantity of work by each resource, as shown in
Published by NRC Research Press

Cho et al. Fig. 4. Three situations caused by the difference between equipment and labor production curve.

41

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

Figs. 4a and 4b, the following three situations occur, according to which resource leveling should be performed.  Situation 1 (0 < labor number < balance point, labor number axis in Figs. 4a and 4b): lack of quantity of work by labor causes idle time of equipment. In case of

n1 of labor input, the quantity of work becomes f(h)1. If the quantity of work by equipment is f(z)1, f(z)1 is larger than f(h)1, idle equipment time results. Situation 1 is when the production rate by equipment is bigger than the labor resource, and therefore, one needs to balance the two values of the quantity of work, that is, f(z)1 = f(h)1
Published by NRC Research Press

42

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

(i.e., balance point). This is carried out by increasing the labor resources quantity of work by additional labor input.  Situation 2 (balance point < labor number < threshold point, labor number axis in Figs. 4a and 4b): Despite the balance point, a larger quantity of work by the labor resource is required due to certain needs, such as shortening the construction duration. When n2 of labor is inputted, the quantity of work is f(h)2. Because the original quantity of work by equipment f(z)1 is smaller than f(h)2, idle time by the number of labor (n2 balance point) on the labor number axis in Figs. 4a and 4b occurs. In this case, one needs to input e2 of additional equipment to achieve f(z)2, and create a situation similar to Situation 1 (i.e., f(z)2 > f(h)2). Moreover, as performed in Situation 1, one needs to adjust the scheduling by inputting additional labor.  Situation 3 (threshold point < labor number, labor number axis in Fig. 4a and 4b): once n3 of labor that surpasses the threshold point is inputted, the quantity of work by labor f(h)3 no longer increases (Halpin and Riggs 1992). The quantity of work by labor at the threshold point reaches its maximum, and additional labor input causes idle labor time. As such, the difference in the production rate between the equipment and labor brings about idle time. Thus, supplying resources close to the balance point by controlling the amount of the supplied equipment and labor should be considered. Cycle time under the flexible combination of multiple work tasks Once the duration of each work task is calculated, the project manager determines the precedence relationship of the work task using a network technology, such as the unit network in the line of balance model (Lumsden 1968), which shows the interrelationships and (or) interdependencies among work tasks. With the emergence of new construction methods, such as fast-track, concurrent engineering, and space zoning, flexible combinations (i.e., sequential or overlapping relationship) of work tasks occur in the current construction projects. Under such flexible combinations with multiple work tasks, the cycle time is determined, as presented in eq. [1], by considering both the sum of the duration of the work tasks and the correlation effect (i.e., the a value in eq. [1]), such as overlapping. It should be noted, however, that while the sum of the duration of the work tasks in eq. [1] can be calculated using eqs. [11] and [12], the calculation of the correlation effect based on the flexible combinations of work tasks requires a new methodology. As shown in Fig. 5, the flexible combinations of multiple work tasks can be divided largely into general combinations (i.e., Fig. 5a) and extended combinations (i.e., Fig. 5b). As shown in Fig. 5a, general combinations have the following relationships mentioned in precedence networks such as CPM: (i) when the later work task starts later than or simultaneously with the earlier work task (i.e., finish-to-start relationship [work tasks C and D]) and start-to-start relationship [work tasks F and G]); and (ii) when the earlier and later work tasks are completed at the same time (i.e., finish-to-

finish relationship [work tasks C and B, D and E]). The extended combinations, on the other hand, have the following relationships, as shown in Fig. 5b: (i) when the earlier work task ends later than the later work task (i.e., work tasks A and B); (ii) when there is a lag between the earlier and later work tasks (i.e., work tasks C and D); and (iii) when the later work task ends earlier than the earlier work task (i.e., work tasks D and E, G and H). In the case of such flexible combinations, the following three phases should be considered for the calculation of the cycle time: (1) Step 1 Forward calculation: A line (linking line with finish points [LLFP]) that connects the finish points of each work task in the direction of the time flow is drawn (i.e., forward calculation). In other words, as shown in Fig. 5, in this step, a forward linking line that connects the finish point of work task A to the finish point of work task H is drawn. (2) Step 2 Backward calculation: A line (linking line with start points [LLSP]) that connects the start points of each work task in the backward direction of the time flow is drawn (i.e., backward calculation). For example, as shown in Fig. 5, in this step, a backward linking line that connects the start point of work task H to the start point of work task A is drawn. (3) Step 3 Finding the linking dummy: As shown in Fig. 5b, a line is drawn against the forward and backward directions in the process of drawing LLFP and LLSP (the dotted line in Fig. 5b). This is called a linking dummy. In other words, the connection of the finish points of work tasks A and B, the start points of work tasks H and G, and the start points of work tasks E and D in Fig. 5b creates a linking dummy that goes in a reverse direction from the progressing direction. The linking dummy is a concept that was developed to complement the connection of LLFP and LLSP in the case of various combinations of work tasks. Based on the above steps, the cycle time under flexible combinations of work tasks can be calculated using eq. [13]. In other words, if repetitive process A consists of i number of work tasks, the cycle time of process A can be calculated by considering the sum of the durations of the work tasks, the lag time between the work tasks, the overlapping time between the work tasks, and the size of the linking dummy between the work tasks. ( i i1 i1 X X X 13 CT Dj LTk k1 Dl \ Dl1
j1 k1 l1 i1 X n1

i1 X m1

!) LDin1
in

LDm m1

where CT is cycle time, Dj = duration of work task j, LTk k+1 = lag time between work task k and k+1, Dl \ Dl+1 = overlapping time between work task l and l+1, LDm m+1 = size of linking dummy between work task m and m+1 by forward calculation, LDin+1 in = size of linking dummy between work task in+1 and in by backward calculation. For example, in Fig. 5a, the sum of the durations of the work tasks is 37 h (i.e., 37 = 7+4+3+5+4+4+5+5), the sum of the lag times between the work tasks is 0, the sum of the
Published by NRC Research Press

Cho et al. Fig. 5. Flexible combination among multiple work tasks.

43

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

overlapping times is 22 h (i.e., 22 = 4+3+0+4+3+4+4), and the sum of the size of linking dummy is 0. Thus the cycle time becomes 15 h (i.e., 15 = 37+022+0), and this cycle time could be identified as shown in Fig. 5a. Meanwhile, in Fig. 5b, the sum of the durations of the work tasks is 53 h, the sum of the lag times between the work tasks is 1 h, the sum of the overlapping times is 24 h, and the sum of the sizes of the linking dummies is 14 h (i.e., 14 = 8+5+1). Therefore, the cycle time is 16 h (i.e., 16 = 53+12414). As a result, the correlation effects of the flexible combinations of work tasks can be calculated by considering the lag time, overlapping time, and linking dummy, from which the cycle time of a repetitive construction process can be obtained. Case application Core wall construction To prove the validity of the scheduling model, it is applied to the core wall construction, which is a representative repetitive construction process in high-rise construction, to perform the scheduling. Functioning as the structure of a high-rise building, the core wall is built three to four stories faster than the other frame structures. As such, it is considered as an important factor in schedule planning (Koo 2003; Kook 2004). This study conducted a case study involving three high-rise buildings, and based on the results, a scheduling model was verified. The same construction method (auto climbing system form, ACS form) was used in the building core walls, so the types and combinations of work tasks that comprised core walls were unified. The study acquired 83 data sets per floor from the three cases. The analyzed data sets are divided generally into two types: quantitative data including (i) the area of core walls per floor, (ii) the types and quantity of material by work task for core wall construction, (iii) the number and types of labor by work task, (iv) the types and amount of equipment input to core wall construction, and (v) the cycle time per one floor; and deterministic data that can be acquired not by a historical analysis, but by interviews with the project

manager of each case, such as ACS climbing time and concrete curing time. As shown in Fig. 6, work tasks comprising core wall construction in these three cases can be described further. First, Rebar install (work task 2) on the nth floor and Gang form disassembly (work task 1) on the n1th floor were simultaneously performed. Once work tasks 1 and 2 were completed, ACS form climbing (work task 3), which serves as the foothold of the construction, was performed. Here, the ACS form is not elevated on the whole floor at the same time; rather, the whole floor is divided into several working zones, each of which is elevated independently. Thus, the Gang form install (work task 4) on the nth floor is performed in the working zone where the elevation of the ACS form is complete. Once the installation of forms is complete, Concrete pouring (work task 5) is performed. Meanwhile, during concrete curing, Rebar pull-up (work task 6) for the construction on the n+1th floor is performed, using a tower crane (T/C). Table 1 shows the result of the analysis on the resources of the six work tasks that comprise core wall processing. Scheduling model for core wall construction To develop a scheduling model for a core wall project, the duration of the work tasks expressed in eqs. [1] to [12] was calculated. In other words, based on the 83 data sets collected from three case studies, the duration of the six work tasks comprising the core wall construction process was calculated as shown in Fig. 6. As shown in the core wall construction process in Fig. 6, overlapping of work tasks exist due to the combination of the six work tasks of core wall construction, but there is no linking dummy and lag time. Therefore, according to eq. [13], the cycle time required for constructing one floor of the core wall can be calculated by subtracting the sum of the overlapping times of the work tasks from the sum of the durations of the work tasks. That is, because Gang form disassembly (work task 1) and Rebar installation (work task 2) overlap and the time it takes to perform work task 2 is longer than what it takes to perform work task 1, the duration of work task 1
Published by NRC Research Press

44 Fig. 6. Logical priority among work tasks of core wall process.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

Table 1. Profile of core wall construction process. Resource Work task (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Gang form disassemble Rebar install ACS climbing Gang form install Concrete pouring Rebar pull-up Material Gang form (m2) Rebar (ton) ACS form Gang form (m2) Concrete (m3) Rebar (ton) Equipment Pump car T/C Labor Form labor Steel labor Form labor Conc. labor

Note: ACS, auto climbing system; T/C, tower crane.

becomes the overlapping time, shown in Fig. 6, and is excluded from the total cycle time. ACS climbing (work task 3) and Gang form installation (work task 4) also overlap. In actual cases, Gang form installation is started in parallel after one unit of ACS form is raised. In other words, after one unit of ACS form is raised (the analysis of case

studies shows that this process takes 1 h), gangform is installed in parallel. As such, the cycle time for one floor of core wall can be represented as the sum (i.e., 1 h) of the duration of work tasks 2, 4, and 5 and the duration of climbing time for one unit of ACS form, expressed in eq. [14].

14

Published by NRC Research Press

Cho et al.

45

where Q2 = quantity of rebar, Q4 = quantity of gang form, Q5 = quantity of concrete, N2 = number of steel labor, N4 = number of form labor, N5 = number of concrete labor, Np = pump car, V = volume per one floor of core wall. Model validation To verify the proposed scheduling model for core wall construction (i.e., eq. [14]), this study collected the input resources and actual cycle time data based on three other high-rise construction projects in Korea. Then, the cycle time for one floor of core wall was estimated by the developed scheduling model using the collected data set. Based on these applications, this study verified the appropriateness of the developed scheduling model by comparing the cycle time by the proposed scheduling model and the cycle time on an actual case. In this study, 10 data sets (i.e., case 1 to 10 in Table 2) were selected from three other high-rise construction projects (cases 1 to 4 from project 1, cases 5 to 7 from project 2, and cases 8 to 10 from project 3). As shown in Table 2, the selection criteria for 10 cases from each project were the ones that showed a difference in cycle time due to the change in the amount of supplied resources. For example, there was a big difference between case 1 and each of cases 2, 3, and 4 in terms of the inputted resources and cycle time, whereas there was a difference only in labor resources by type between cases 2, 3, and 4. However, they were similar in terms of the cycle time. Therefore, these cases were selected to analyze the effect of each labor resource on the cycle time. Table 2 shows the information of resource for cases 1 to 10 and the cycle time by the developed model (A) and by an actual case (B) when each resource is inputted. Also, Table 2 shows the differences between A and B. The result of the case application to the models showed that the cycle time estimated by the developed scheduling model exhibited a reliability of over 90% compared with the cycle time by actual cases. As shown in row D of Table 2, the differences between the cycle time by the developed model and actual cycle time were 10% less, and the average of differences in Table 2 was 3.35% (the bottom line of Table 2). Analysis of the change in the cycle time based on the change in the inputted resources showed that all the other conditions, except for the size of the supplied form labor, were similar between cases 5 and 7 (i.e., the size of the core wall, the supplied equipment, and the number of other laborers supplied). The result of the estimation using the proposed model showed that the cycle time of case 5, in which 20 more form laborers were inputted, was smaller than that of case 7 (i.e., 29.292 vs. 32.206 h), showing that the number of form laborers supplied affects the cycle time. For cases 9 and 10, all the conditions, except for the number of steel laborers, are similar, but despite the fact that six more steel laborers were supplied to case 9, there was little difference in the cycle time estimated by the model between cases 9 (26.192 h) and 10 (26.714 h). This shows that the developed model is not greatly affected by the number of steel laborers. In the case of concrete labor, it is believed that the change in the cycle time will be negligible because the number of supplied concrete laborers is the same in all the cases.
Published by NRC Research Press

Case 10 Case 9 Case 8 Case 7 Case 6 Case 5 Case 4 Case 3 Case 2 Table 2. Result of cycle time estimation. Case 1

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

Volume (per one floor, m3) Material Gangform(m2) Rebar(ton) Concrete(m3) Equip Pump car Tower crane Labor Form labor Steel labor Conc. labor A. Cycle time by the model B. Cycle time on actual case C. |AB| D. C/B*100 (%)

192.78 998.844 16.508 168.2 2 2 37 19 5 29.292 27 2.292 8.487


Note: Average % of row D = 3.35%.

Resource type

192.78 997.841 16.241 167.8 1 2 18 13 3 36.983 36 0.983 2.731

192.78 998.801 16.207 168.1 1 2 20 13 5 35.875 36 0.125 0.348

192.78 998.801 16.427 167.5 1 2 20 15 3 35.847 36 0.153 0.424

165.72 863.104 13.601 156.1 1 2 37 17 5 29.292 30 0.708 2.360

165.72 862.811 13.548 156.1 2 2 25 21 5 29.616 31 1.384 4.464

165.72 865.041 13.652 156.3 2 2 17 17 4 32.206 36 3.794 10.540

131.54 721.1 6.687 112.4 2 2 31 11 5 29.048 29 0.048 0.165

131.54 720.8 6.598 112.2 2 2 27 25 7 26.192 27 0.808 2.994

131.54 721.7 6.649 112.8 2 2 27 19 5 26.714 27 0.286 1.059

46

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 3. Comparison of CPM, LSM, and the developed model along important project management attributes. Scheduling methods (1) Flexible job logic CPM Partly resolved by using the finish-to-start, start-to-start, finish-to-finish, and start-to-finish methodsf Can estimate the total duration via forwardbackward calculation LSM (LOB) Unit network could be applied to build a flexible job logic among work tasks.h Easy estimation of the total duration via the locationtime relationship & easy process updatec,d The developed model Flexible job logic with multi-work tasks are easily solved by the LLFP, LLSP, and linking dummy It offers accurate duration estimation

(2) Duration estimation & ease of update

Deterministic method; difficult to updateb,d

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

(3) Uncertainty

Can be considered using PERTs probabilistic methodd Easily addresses the project management via critical pathd,f Well-known method; easy to used Deterministic methodb

No method for considering uncertaintyd Allows project management through the use of the controlling activity path and critical pathd,e Easy to understand due to its locationtime relationshipd,g Considers the production rate based on the locationtime relationshipc,d Able to calculate a rate of productivity by the concept of natural rhythmh

(4) Aid in management

There is a limitation to require the historical data to estimate project duration It can partly consider uncertainty but cannot fully address it (for future research) Lacking in project management

(5) Ease of use (6) Productivity

Easy to use as it is a mathematicalformula-based model Resource-based method

Considers labor productivity loss

(7) Resource management

Resource allocation

Has difficulty tracking the duration change based on resource changea

Considers the correlation effect due to a difference between equipment and labor productivity Easily estimates the cycle time change based on the resource change

Resource leveling
Note: CPM, critical path method; LSM, linear scheduling method; LOB, line of balance; LLFP, linking line with finish points; LLSP, linking line with start points; PERT, program evaluation and review technique.
a b

Suhail and Neale (1994). Lu and AbouRizk (2000). c Arditi et al. (2001). d Yamin and Harmelink (2001). e Mattila and Park (2003). f Yang and Ioannou (2004). g Nageeb and Johnson (2009). h Lumsden (1968).

Discussion
To verify the usability and contribution of the developed scheduling model, CPM, a representative scheduling method, and the linear scheduling method (LSM), which is widely used in the scheduling of repetitive construction processes, were selected among the existing scheduling methods. They were subsequently compared to the proposed scheduling model. Based on the comparison items used in the past studies on scheduling methodology, CPM and LSM were analyzed and compared. As shown in Table 3, a total of seven items were used to compare the three models (i.e., flexible job logic, duration estimation and ease of update, uncertainty, aid in management, ease of use, productivity, and resource management). First, in terms of flexible job logic, CPM offers limited expression and solution whereas the developed model can

easily express the flexible job logic among multiple work tasks using the LLFP, LLSP, and linking dummy. Second, in terms of duration estimation and ease of update, CPM, LSM, and the developed model all offer excellent performance. The developed model, however, not only provides excellent accuracy in estimation but is also more convenient for updating. Meanwhile, prior to using the developed model to estimate project cycle time, it is necessary to have the historical data in terms of relationship between labor number and the equivalent work quantity. Third, in terms of uncertainty, CPM can consider the uncertainty of a construction project through the program evaluation and review technique (PERT), whereas LSM does not have any typical methodology that can consider uncertainty. As for the developed model, while it can partly consider uncertainty in the model development process, it cannot fully address the issue. Fourth, in terms of aid in management, both CPM and LSM
Published by NRC Research Press

Cho et al.

47

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

offer easy monitoring of the project process through methods like critical path and controlling activity path. In contrast, the developed model requires further research based on the LLSP, LLFP, and linking dummy. Fifth, in terms of ease of use, CPM and LSM can be easily applied to construction projects and can be easily understood by the users. The users can also easily implement the developed model as it is based on a mathematical formula. Sixth, in terms of productivity, LSM can calculate the productivity rate based on the locationtime relationship. According to Lumsden (1968), a rate of production for each work task could be calculated by the concept of natural rhythm, even though this concept was not considered in this research. The developed model, however, offers superior performance in considering the productivity loss based on the change in supplied labor and in productivity due to the difference in productivity between the equipment and labor. Finally, in terms of resource management, CPM allows resource management via methods such as resource allocation and leveling, whereas LSM does not have general methodologies for resource management. The developed model, on the other hand, offers excellent resource management as it can easily analyze the change in cycle time due to the change in resources. Based on the results of the comparison, it was determined that the model developed in this study is superior to the existing methodologies in terms of (i) flexible job planning, (ii) estimation of the cycle time based on the change in supplied resources, and (iii) productivity.

time of the core wall per floor in the early stages of a highrise construction project. Furthermore, the developed scheduling model can help the project manager easily complement any delay during the construction phase. In this study, however, the uncertainty of a construction project, which generally has to be applied by considering a probability function in the development of a scheduling method, was not considered. Constraints that are important in scheduling, such as the availability of resources (i.e., material, equipment, and labor) and spaces, were not considered in this study. Therefore, these should be examined in future studies. Moreover, since the developed scheduling model is for repetitive construction processes focused on high-rise buildings, it may not be suitable for scheduling other repetitive projects such as road construction projects. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a scheduling model for various repetitive projects based on the scheduling model developed in this study. Moreover, it is necessary to analyze the optimal combination of work tasks for repetitive construction processes, as well as the optimization between the number of resources input to work tasks and the equivalent cycle time.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant (07UrbanRenaissanceB03) from High-Tech Urban Development Program funded by the Ministry of Construction & Transportation of Korean Government.

Conclusion
This study developed a scheduling model for repetitive construction processes, which enables combinations of multiple work tasks required in actual construction sites. The proposed scheduling model also considered construction equipment, which previously has not been considered a major scheduling factor despite its importance in terms of productivity in a construction project. Furthermore, the proposed scheduling model considered the labor productivity loss due to idle time arising from increase in labor resource. The methodology that was developed in this study can calculate the cycle time while considering the flexible combinations of work tasks. Since this research was not focused to improve the LOB technique, some functions of the developed model are only equivalent to the functions provided by LOB, such as unit network. As shown in the results in Table 2, all the cases except case 7 (10.540%) showed that the developed scheduling model exhibited over 90% estimation accuracy. The average difference in cycle time between the actual cases and the developed model was 3.35%, indicating the excellent estimation performance of the developed model. It is believed that the developed scheduling model can meet the needs of simultaneous or overlapping work tasks that comprise repetitive construction processes, which occur frequently in actual construction projects. Also, based on the developed scheduling model, one can propose a plan to minimize the idle construction labor time and offer effective use of construction equipment. Using the scheduling model of the core wall developed by the proposed scheduling model in this study, a project manager can easily predict the cycle

References
Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O.B., and Suh, K. 2001. Effect of learning on line-of-balance scheduling. International Journal of Project Management, 19(5): 265277. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00079-4. El-Rayes, K. 2001. Object-oriented model for repetitive construction scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(3): 199205. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(2001)127:3(199). El-Rayes, K., and Moselhi, O. 1998. Resource-driven scheduling of repetitive activities. Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 16(4): 433446. doi:10.1080/014461998372213. Fan, S.L., and Tserng, H.P. 2006. Object oriented scheduling for repetitive projects with soft logic. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(1): 3548. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9364(2006)132:1(35). Halpin, D.W., and Riggs, L.S. 1992. Planning and analysis of construction operations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Harmelink, D.J., and Rowings, J.E. 1998. Linear scheduling model: development of controlling activity path. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(4): 263268. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:4(263). Huang, R.Y., and Sun, K.S. 2006. Non unit based planning and scheduling of repetitive construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(6): 585597. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:6(585). Hyari, K., and El-Rayes, K. 2006. Optimal planning and scheduling for repetitive construction projects. Journal of Management Engineering, 22(1): 1119. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2006) 22:1(11). Kavanagh, D.P. 1985. SIREN: A repetitive construction simulation model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111(3): 308323. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1985) 111:3(308).
Published by NRC Research Press

48 Koo, S.H. 2003. A decision-making process to select system form for core wall in high-rise building construction. M.S. thesis, The Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. Kook, K.H. 2004. Study on constructability improvement core wall construction method of the high-rise building structure. M.S. thesis, The Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. Lu, M., and AbouRizk, S.M. 2000. Simplified CPM/PERT simulation model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(3): 219226. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000) 126:3(219). Lumsden, P. 1968. The line-of-balance method. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Mattila, K.G., and Park, A. 2003. Comparison of linear scheduling model and repetitive scheduling method. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(1): 5664. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:1(56). Moselhi, O., and El-Rayes, K. 1993. Scheduling of repetitive projects with cost optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(4): 681697. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9364(1993)119:4(681). Nageeb, M.R., and Johnson, B.T. 2009. Line of balance scheduling: software enabled use in the U.S. construction industry. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual conference of the Associated Schools of Construction of University Florida, April 2009, Florida.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011 Reda, R.M. 1990. RPM: Repetitive project modeling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2): 316330. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1990)116:2(316). Sanders, S.R., and Thomas, R.H. 1993. Masonry productivity forecasting model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(1): 163179. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(1993)119:1(163). Schaufelberger, J.E. 1999. Construction equipment management. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Sonmez, R., and Rowings, J.E. 1998. Construction labor productivity modeling with neural network. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(6): 498504. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9364(1998)124:6(498). Suhail, S.A., and Neale, R.H. 1994. CPM/LOB: New methodology to integrate CPM and Line of Balance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(3): 667684. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:3(667). Yamin, R.A., and Harmelink, D.J. 2001. Comparison of Linear Scheduling Model (LSM) and Critical Path Method (CPM). Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(5): 374381. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:5(374). Yang, I., and Ioannou, P.G. 2004. Scheduling system focus on practical concerns in repetitive projects. Construction Management and Economics, 22(6): 619630. doi:10.1080/ 01446190310001649065.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 39.48.182.199 on 03/05/13 For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press