Hajjar, D and AbouRizk, S M (2002) Unified modeling methodology for construction simulation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(2), pp. 174-185. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper discusses a new approach that will facilitate the use of simulation in the construction industry. Previous attempts in this regard have been hampered by the gap between the user and the simulation software, the power and flexibility of available tools, and the readiness of industry. A comprehensive new approach (referred to as the Unified Modeling Methodology), which addresses the complete needs of the construction simulationist, is detailed. It is based on several state-of-the-art concepts in addition to newly developed ones. This methodology also describes how all of these concepts can be combined together using object oriented principles. The methodology was used in the development of a complete simulation tool development and utilization environment called Simphony. Several case studies were performed to illustrate the advantages of the new approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | computer aided simulation; methodology; models |
| Index terms: | methodology, state of the art, simulation tool, construction simulation, modelling, computer aided simulation, construction industry, case study |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, research methods, analytical methods, modelling and simulation, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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