Shi, J and AbouRizk, S M (1997) Resource-based modeling for construction simulation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(1), pp. 26-33. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The application of simulation in the construction industry has always been hindered by the complexities involved in constructing simulation models and the resultant time requirement. This paper presents a modeling method for construction simulation - resource-based modeling (RBM), in which operating processes of active resources are defined as atomic models (basic and unique description of a particular process) and are stored in a model library. These atomic models can be modified to form project-specific atomic models according to user-specified project information. Through defined linking structures, they can be assembled into a working simulation model for the project. Therefore, the user can construct a simulation model for a project by simply specifying required resources and project site conditions. The modeler does not have to be proficient with simulation theory and the selected simulation language. Our experience with implementing simulation in the construction industry shows that this is an effective approach. A sample application is used to illustrate the RBM concepts and its advantages.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | complexity, construction simulation, modelling, construction industry |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, industry analysis, analytical methods, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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