Shi, J and Abourizk, S (1998) Continuous and combined event-process models for simulating pipeline construction. Construction Management and Economics, 16(4), pp. 489-498. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A continuous model and a combined event-process discrete model are developed by employing the Slam II general purpose simulation language. The continuous model addressed the on-going progress of the construction process on a higher level; and the combined event-process discrete model describes the pipeline construction on the operational level. Resource sharing and related issues also are investigated in the two models through an actual gas line project adopted for the purpose of this research. A comparison of the two models provides insights into the modelling approaches. It is concluded that the combined event-process model is more flexible and more powerful for modelling complex construction operations than the continuous model, but at the price of requiring a better understanding of the actual operations and more detailed information.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | computer simulation; linear construction; modelling; pipeline construction; planning; slam ii; slamsystem |
| Index terms: | computer simulation, construction operation, linear construction, pipeline construction, modelling, construction process |
| Subjects: | building construction, construction operations, civil engineering, analytical methods, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PA |
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