Li, F.; Chi, H. L.; Li, R.; Zou, Z. and Wang, R. D. (2026) Two-stage optimization design framework for tower crane layout planning in modular integrated construction considering transportation efficiency, operator visibility, and lifting safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(6): 04026080, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
With the increasing prevalence of modular integrated construction (MiC) projects, effective tower crane layout planning has become crucial to balance multiple goals, including efficiency and safety. Studies typically focus on single-objective optimization, primarily minimizing total traveling time or cost in conventional construction sites. The larger and heavier components used in MiC necessitate cranes with higher lifting capacity, which complicates planning and raises concerns about lifting safety. This study presents a two-stage optimization design framework for the single-tower crane layout in MiC. First, a multiobjective optimization model was proposed, incorporating considerations of traveling time, visibility, and lifting moment. The mathematical formulation for traveling time was modified to account for module rotation time and the distinct movement features of tower cranes. Second, heuristic algorithms, including the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm III and multiobjective particle swarm optimization, were employed to solve the proposed multiobjective optimization problem. The final optimal layout was determined using the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution method based on varying weights for the model's objectives. The proposed approach was validated through a case study of a MiC project in Hong Kong. Experimental results demonstrate a 26% increase in hoisting efficiency, a 9.3% improvement in operator visibility, and a 23.8% reduction in total lifting moment compared to the original layout. Additionally, optimizing the initial orientation of the modules leads to a 12.6% improvement in traveling time. To further support decision-making, a user interface system was developed, enabling planners to make informed choices during the planning process. This study provides a structured and practical approach for optimizing tower crane layouts in modular construction projects, integrating efficiency and safety considerations. By offering practitioners tools to achieve customized layout solutions during the preconstruction stage, this framework significantly enhances the planning process for MiC projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | modular construction, decision-making, practitioner, lifting, preference, hoisting, movement, genetic algorithm, design framework, user interface, construction site, module, planner, Hong Kong, efficiency, planning process, case study, heuristic, tower crane |
| Subjects: | design practice, performance management, project controls, occupational health and safety management, decision analysis, data collection methods, profession, risk assessment, work location, architectural elements, maintenance engineering, decision-making and reasoning, algorithms, Geography, building construction, human-computer interaction, practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, construction operations |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Site Management, Time Control, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| 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