Koo, B and Fischer, M (2000) Feasibility study of 4D CAD in commercial construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), pp. 251-260. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper concludes that 4D models are a useful alternative to project scheduling tools like CPM networks and bar charts. They enable more people to understand a schedule quickly and identify potential problems. By developing a 4D model for a commercial construction project, we were able to detect the incompleteness of the original schedule, find inconsistencies in the level of detail among the schedule activities, and discover an impossible schedule sequence. We were also able to anticipate potential time-space conflicts and accessibility problems. The results of the case study show that 4D models are effective in evaluating the executability of a construction schedule. The case study also highlighted the need for improvements to 4D tools. 4D tools should include bar charts, component lists, and annotation tools in their graphical user interface. Automating schedule data preparation and 4D model generation in the design stages of a project can expedite 4D model development and use. Users need to be able to generate 4D models at multiple levels of detail and generate and evaluate alternative scenarios rapidly.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | commercial construction, case study, accessibility, user interface, project scheduling, level of detail, feasibility study, model development, design stage |
| Subjects: | human-computer interaction, project controls, inclusive design, analytical methods, professional practice, technical documentation, design stages, construction type, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Time Control, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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