Journal of Civil Engineering and Science                 
Journal of Civil Engineering and Science(JCES)
ISSN:2227-4634 (Print)
ISSN:2227-4626(Online)
Website: www.academicpub.org/jces/
Simulation of Execution Alternatives Using Chronographic Scheduling Logic
Full Paper(PDF, 1289KB)
Abstract:
The more complex a project is, the more attractive non-traditional project delivery methods like Design-Build become. These delivery methods allow decisions with several options to be postponed. To account for these alternatives, existing generalized scheduling methods integrate decisions into their processes; however, these methods only use traditional precedence dependencies for network calculations. This paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge by extending the traditional logic and modeling execution alternatives using chronographic time-scaled point-to-point relations, production-based dynamic relations and function dependencies between ongoing activities. Using the Monte-Carlo simulation, the paper simulates the impact of operations and reworks uncertainties for the execution alternatives. For companies, this approach represents scheduling constraints in a flexible manner and provides a feasible solution for modeling the complexity of real-world projects.
Keywords:Simulation; Execution Alternatives; Uncertainties; Chronographic; Scheduling; Project; Construction
Author: Adel Francis1, Edmond Miresco1
1.Construction Engineering Department, école de technologie supérieure, 1100 Notre-Dame Street West, Montreal, Qc, H3C 1K3, Canada
References:
  1. Winter, M., Smith C., Morris, P., and Cicmil, S. “Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 24, iss. 8, pp. 638-649, Nov. 2006.
  2. Francis, A. and Miresco, E., “Decision Support for Project Management Using a Chronographic Approach,” in Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Decision Making in Urban and Civil Engineering, Lyon, France, 2000, pp. 845-856.
  3. Francis, A., Bibai, J., and Miresco, E. T., “Simulation of scheduling logic using dynamic functions,” Management, Procurement and Law, vol. 166, iss. 3, pp. 145-158, June 2013.
  4. Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., and Fazar, W., “Applications of a technique for research and development program evaluation,” Oper. Res., vol. 7, iss. 5, pp. 646-669, Oct. 1959.
  5. Eisner, H., “A generalized network approach to the planning and research and scheduling of the research program,” Oper. Res., vol. 10, iss. 1, pp. 115-125, Jan.-Feb. 1962.
  6. Pritsker, A. B., “GERT: Graphical evaluation and review technique,” Memorandum RM-4973-NASA, Prepared for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA: 138 pp., 1996.
  7. Crowston, W. B. and Thompson, G. L., “Decision CPM: A method for simultaneous planning, scheduling and control of projects,” Oper. Res., vol. 15, pp. 407-426, June 1967.
  8. Moeller, G. L. and Digman, L. A., “Operations planning with VERT,” Oper. Res., vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 676-697, Aug. 1981.
  9. Itakura, H. and Nishikawa, Y., “Fuzzy network technique for technological forecasting,” Fuzzy Sets Sys., vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 99-113, Nov. 1984.
  10. Chehayeb, N. N. and AbouRizk, S. M., “Simulation-based scheduling with continuous activity relationships,” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., vol. 124, iss. 2, pp. 107-115, Mar. 1998, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364.
  11. Martinez, J. C. and Ioannou, P. G., “State-based probabilistic scheduling using STROBOSCOPE’s CPM add-on,” in Proc. Constructions Congress V, Minneapolis, MN, ASCE, Reston, 1997, pp. 438-445.
  12. Francis, A. and Miresco, E. T., “A generalized time-scale network simulation using chronographic dynamics relation,” In Proc. Int. Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering, Miami, FL, ASCE, 2011, paper 114, pp. 560-568.