A configuration-based modeling methodology for the automated generation of simulation models in construction

Manavazhi, M R (1998) A configuration-based modeling methodology for the automated generation of simulation models in construction. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.

Abstract

Although simulation provides a powerful tool for the analysis of construction operations, its use in construction has been mainly restricted to academic research. One of the reasons for this phenomenon is the steep learning curve associated with becoming proficient in the use of simulation in general and simulation modeling in particular. A number of research efforts have been directed at simplifying the model-building process but very little research has been directed at automating this process in the construction field. Previous research work in the area of the automated generation of simulation models in construction has focused on operations involving movement of material without taking into consideration the constraints imposed by the configuration of the structure to be built. This research presents a configuration-based simulation modeling (CBSM) methodology, which addresses the issue of complexities imposed by the configuration of the structure while automatically generating the simulation model. The CBSM methodology consists of a structural decomposition phase and a model generation phase. In the structural decomposition phase, structural decomposition criteria (SDC) are used for the systematic and product-centric decomposition of the structure to a level that facilitates the application of one or more simulation processes. Logical constraints provide links between the elements of the final level of the decomposition. A proof-of-concept prototype (CONFIGSIM$\sb{-}$2), based on the CBSM methodology was developed and tested for earth-filled dam structures. CONFIGSIM$\sb{-}$2 was developed using the object-oriented programming paradigm. The main contributions of this research are (a) the development of a methodology for the automated generation of simulation models of the operations required to construct a structure with a specified configuration; (b) the development of structural decomposition criteria for facilitating the systematic decomposition of the structure to be built; (c) demonstration of the feasibility of combining object orientation with discrete event simulation to automatically generate simulation models; (d) development of the concept of a SIMOBJECT--a modular and reusable representation of simulation and software entities which could be organized into a working program; and (e) development of a system architecture for an object-oriented, model-generation tool for the automated generation of simulation models in construction.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Thesis advisor: Abourizk, S M
Uncontrolled Keywords: system architecture; building process; learning; programming; simulation
Index terms: modelling, paradigm, simulation modelling, construction operation, discrete event simulation, becoming, building process, complexity, methodology, system architecture, program, programming, configuration, prototype, dam structure, movement
Subjects: education and knowledge transfer, structural engineering, software systems, research methods, building construction, philosophical process, systems engineering, design theory, programming, health behaviours and lifestyles, modelling and simulation, construction operations, analytical methods
Topics: Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Site Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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