Shaked, O and Warszawski, A (1995) Knowledge-based system for construction planning of high-rise buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(2), pp. 172-182. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The knowledge-based expert system for construction planning is part of an automated building realization process. The system uses an object-oriented representation of the building and production rules, routines, and functions to manipulate objects and to generate the construction plan. The building is represented by its zones, functional systems, and works. The procedural knowledge employs rules for the generation of activities and their dependences. The algorithms are employed to allocate resources and to generate the construction schedule. The algorithms reflect the different objectives of managerial decision making, such as least cost, managerial efficiency, or fastest completion. This paper presents the principles of the system, explains the structure of its knowledge base, and discusses various implementation aspects. It also includes an example of the application.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | implementation, knowledge-based system, decision-making, construction planning, high-rise building, knowledge base, efficiency, expert system, routine |
| Subjects: | construction type, sociology, information systems, decision analysis, data management, performance management, contractual arrangements, artificial intelligence, construction planning |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Procurement, Quality Management, Site Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here