Mawdesley, M J; Askew, W H and Al-Jibouri, S H (2004) Site layout for earthworks in road projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(2), pp. 83-89. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
This paper describes the integration of various models to provide a realistic decision support system for linear project site layout. Initially, the paper describes an investigation to determine the actual methods currently used by project managers and planners. A review of both techniques adopted by the managers and the knowledge acquisition methods employed are included in the paper. Following this, this paper describes the work done to automate the existing systems. This resulted in a system which has been used in practice and has been shown to be a great help to managers. It is based on the traditional method of mass-haul diagrams used to determine the earthworks activities. A separate simulation and artificial intelligence model of earthworks are described. This will be extended to model linear projects more realistically than does mass-haul.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction operations; decision support systems; site investigations |
| Index terms: | project manager, construction operation, knowledge acquisition, investigation, planner, site investigation, artificial intelligence, road project, site layout, decision support, manager, earthwork, integration |
| Subjects: | infrastructure engineering, student development, geotechnical engineering, decision analysis, organizational analysis, practitioner, profession, data collection methods, site logistics, construction operations, artificial intelligence, construction methods |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Education, Site Management, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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