Hassan, Z (1997) CONPLAN: Construction planning and buildability evaluation in an integrated and intelligent construction environment. PhD thesis, University of Salford, UK.
Abstract
The lack of a buildability evaluation at the design stage coupled with the separation of the design and construction processes have been acknowledged to cause buildability problems on site. Normally, designers view of their task, is to develop a masterpiece which satisfies the functional requirements of a project while constructors consider their task as construction works, which need to be completed at the lowest price. No significant efforts have been made to bring the design and construction processes together to facilitate the integration of information for the improvement of the overall project performance. This study proposes an integrated framework for construction planning which is capable of exchanging information with other construction disciplines and generating planning information in an integrated construction environment. Planning data and processes were first modelled using object oriented analysis methodology, i.e. Martin (1993), where the emphasis was placed on both the data and its behaviour. This development was carried out within a general integrated framework which facilitates the integration between the various construction application across the project life cycle. The developed models highlight the importance and the role of the planning process which is vital in providing relevant information to other disciplines. Moreover, the study proposes a quantitative approach for a buildability evaluation based on the information available within the integrated environment. It evaluates the design solutions from the construction view, as outlined in the construction plan. The qualitative principles of buildability improvements were adopted to formalise this approach. A combination of weightings and scores were assigned to building elements to reflect their buildability factors. The developed data and process models, were implemented in an object oriented environment as part of a single integrated construction environment SPACE (Simultaneous Prototyping for An Integrated Construction Environment) where CONPLAN (Intelligent CONstruction PLANning for design rationalisation) is one of the SPACE modules. CONPLAN automatically generates the construction planning information and the buildability reports. The former can be dynamically accessed either through a planning package or visualised in a virtual space using a virtual reality package. The buildability reports can be either displayed in a textual or graphical format.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildability; construction planning; improvement; integration; life cycle; performance; virtual reality; designer; project performance |
| Index terms: | methodology, prototyping, integration, design stage, buildability, construction planning, virtual reality, construction work, project performance, module, design and construction, life cycle, designer, planning process, package |
| Subjects: | virtual reality, profession, value management, operations management, construction planning, professional practice, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, research methods, architectural elements, project management theory and practice, organizational analysis, project controls, design efficiency |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Site Management, Organizational Design, Time Control |
| 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