Effects of Half-Precast Concrete Slab System On Construction Productivity

sustainability
Article
Effects of Half-Precast Concrete Slab System on
Construction Productivity
Kyuman Cho 1 , Young-su Shin 2 and Taehoon Kim 1, *
1 School of Architecture, Chosun University, Gwangju 61452, Korea; cho129@chosun.ac.kr
2 Manager, Kunwon Engineering, Seoul 05855, Korea; silver1ys@naver.com
* Correspondence: thoonkim@chosun.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-62-230-7145
Received: 6 July 2017; Accepted: 17 July 2017; Published: 19 July 2017
Abstract: A half-precast concrete slab system (HPCSS) is reported to exhibit excellent structural
performance when compared with traditional slab systems. However, there is a lack of extant research
examining the construction issues of an HPCSS. Thus, in this study, we analyze the construction
process and productivity of applying an HPCSS by using a simulation method with the data collected
from an actual construction case. The results indicate that (i) the construction productivity of HPCSS
is 1.7 times that of a traditional slab system, (ii) the cost per productivity unit of HPCSS exceeds
that of a traditional slab system, and (iii) critical resources affecting the HPCSS productivity include
form crew and rebar crew. The results of this study suggest that it is possible to develop an optimal
construction plan of a construction site in which an HPCSS is installed, and that the HPCSS can be
actively applied in the future.
Keywords: half-precast concrete slab system; construction productivity; construction simulation
1. Introduction
The construction industry is a highly labor-intensive industry facing several issues, including low
productivity and construction quality. In order to overcome such problems, several researchers and
practitioners have attempted to develop various methods to facilitate mechanical or manufactured
procurements for a part of a facility, and this has subsequently led to the proliferation of automation
technology in construction. That is, automation construction technologies are used in the construction
of facilities, and the use of construction machines instead of construction laborers has led to high
effectiveness and quality in assembling several parts of a facility.
In this context, precast concrete (PC) slab systems have been proposed by various researchers
because of their advantages in terms of quality, convenience, and construction period. Recently,
a half-PC slab (or composite slab) was developed to replace existing construction methods, and to
improve the performance of a PC slab system. In general, a half-PC slab system (HPCSS) is defined as
a slab system that is pre-stressed and used with slab topping concrete. The structural performance of
an HPCSS is known to be higher than that of normal concrete in terms of crack and deflection control
because of the manufacturing process employed in controlled environments in a factory [1].
Although several researchers have examined the structural performance of HPCSSs, there is
a paucity of research investigating issues concerning construction engineering and management.
That is, it is necessary to identify (i) the manner in which relevant work activities are influenced
by the application of HPCSS, (ii) the type of work activities comprising the HPCSS that has the
maximal impact on determining project success, and (iii) the type of resources required to carry out the
aforementioned activities that should be carefully considered to achieve effective construction work.
In this context, the aim of the present study involves analyzing the differences between the construction
productivity of an HPCSS and that of a traditional slab system. In addition, the study focuses on
detailing issues related to an HPCSS based on the results of construction productivity analysis.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1268; doi:10.3390/su9071268 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1268 2 of 15
Essentially, in the study, the construction productivity of an HPCSS is analyzed to compare an

HPCSS and a traditional slab system (i.e., a cast-in-place slab system or CIPSS). This involves selecting
and analyzing an actual construction that is built by using both slab systems experimentally to gather
the data necessary to compare the construction process and productivity of the HPCSS with the
corresponding parameters of a CIPSS. A discrete event simulation technique based on the collected
data is used to measure the performance of each slab system in terms of construction productivity,
including installation time, resource utilization, and cost effectiveness.
2. State of the Art

Several studies have introduced methods to enhance the structural performance of concrete
members. Recent studies have proposed cement-based bonded overlay techniques (i.e., HPCSS) to
enhance the structural performance of a PC slab system by topping a layer of cast in-situ reinforced
concrete with various materials, including steel fibers and polyvinyl alcohol fibers [24]. The purpose
of these studies involved adding materials to improve the load-carrying capacity and stiffness of the
HPCSS, and their results revealed that the structural performance of the HPCSS was highly dependent
on the bonding between the topped layers and the substrate [3].
Most previous studies related to composite slabs have focused on evaluating their structural
performance. However, to the best of the authors knowledge, very few studies have explored the
effect of applying an HPCSS from a construction engineering and management (CEM) viewpoint.
A careful review of previous studies that focus on the CEM aspects of precast technology, including
HPCSS, indicates that the research objective and scope of the extant studies can be divided into the
three following categories: (i) production management of precast members [58], (ii) benefit analysis
of precast technology in terms of waste management, environment, time, and cost [911], and (iii)
effective installation of precast members [1214]. With respect to the first category, Chen et al. [5]
examined the issue of improving the current production process of the precast elements based on
expert opinions. Ko and Wang [6] and Li et al. [7] proposed a decision support system using genetic
algorithms to aid project managers in arranging precast member production plans. Yin et al. [8]
developed a precast production management system using radio-frequency identification (RFID) to
facilitate the production of precast members by considering production quantity, material quantity,
and inspection and inventory information. With respect to research related to benefit analysis in
conjunction with the application of a precast technique, Ahmed and Avetisyan [9] analyzed the
benefits of applying precast normal weight wall panels in terms of the construction time and costs.
Dong et al. [10] measured carbon emissions from the application of a precast method with high-rise
building construction work. Shen et al. [11] analyzed the benefits of the precast method in terms of
reducing waste. With respect to the effective installation of precast members, Li et al. [12] suggested
a new system to train precast installation workers to be productive while ensuring awareness of the
risks of precast installation works. Nath et al. [13] proposed a method to generate shop drawings of
precast members by using building information modeling (BIM) technique. Pan et al. [14] proposed
a new technique termed the Full-span precast launching method to develop bridge construction
technology based on the results of high-speed rail project case studies.
As mentioned previously, there is a lack of studies examining the precast method from the CEM
viewpoint, while very few extant studies have focused on improving the production efficiency and
delivery issues of precast elements. In addition, although HPCSS was developed to compensate for
the several problems of a precast slab system, to the best of the authors knowledge, very few studies
have explored the construction aspects of HPCSS. Hence, the present study focuses on the manner in
which an HPCSS application affects related construction works and construction productivity when
compared with those of a conventional CIPSS.
3. Case Study of Half-Precast Slab System Construction Work

As mentioned previously, the construction productivity of an HPCSS is based on the comparison
results between an HPCSS and a CIPSS. Thus, it is necessary that a case study should be conducted
based on an actual project that is constructed using both slab systems (i.e., HPCSS and CIPSS).
3.1. Case Introduction

Table 1 lists the profile of our selected construction project case. As can be inferred from the table,
the building in question was located in Gwangju Metropolitan City, comprising six floors (five floors
and one underground floor). With respect to the structure system, (i) the main structure system design
was based on the reinforced concrete system, (ii) HPCSS was applied to the slab work at the 5th floor,
and (iii) the other floors (i.e., 2nd to 4th floors) were constructed using CIPSS.
Table 1. Details of the case considered in the study.
Items Major Features

Project name K Building construction project
Location Gwangju Metropolitan City, South Korea
Type of building Office building
Type of structure Reinforced Concrete (RC) system
Construction area 2138.56 m2
Gross floor area 6610.98 m2
Number of Floors 6 floors (five floors and one underground floor)
Floor plan HPCSS installed 5th floor
CIPSS installed 2nd to 4th floors
Floor area installed by HPCSS 564.2 m2
Figure 1 shows the floor construction plan with the use of each slab system (i.e., HPCSS and CIPSS).
As shown in the figure, each floor has a similar space plan involving the design of two separated spaces
(i.e., service area and office area), and HPCSS and CIPSS were applied to construct the office area.
Figure 1a shows the plan of the 5th floor that was designed such that it was constructed using 16 HPCSS
units, while the 2nd to 4th floors were constructed using the traditional slab system (i.e., CIPSS),
as shown in Figure 1b. The construction productivity of each slab system was deduced based on the
data including resource and duration information (Table 2) collected during the installation work of
each system on the same area, and thus, the construction productivity of both slab systems could be
considered reliable.
1 3
2 4
7
1
8
10 9
12 11
14 13
16 15
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Floor plans for half-precast concrete slab system (HPCSS) and a cast-in-place slab system
Figure 1. Floor plans for half-precast concrete slab system (HPCSS) and a cast-in-place slab system
(CIPSS) for the case project: (a) 5th floor plan; (b) 2nd4th floor plan.
(CIPSS) for the case project: (a) 5th floor plan; (b) 2nd4th floor plan.
3.2. Installation Process of Each Slab System

3.2. Installation Process of Each Slab System
With respect to buildings that adopt a reinforced structure system, the structure system
With respect
typically comprisesto buildings
four basicthatelements
adopt a reinforced structurebeam
including column, system, and thegirder,
structure
wall,system typically
and slab. In
comprises
addition, a case showed that there was no difference in terms of installation work of the column, a
four basic elements including column, beam and girder, wall, and slab. In addition,
case showed
beam, thatand
girder, there was
wall, no difference
irrespective in type
of the termsofofslab
installation
works (i.e., work
HPCSSof theandcolumn,
CIPSS).beam,
That is, girder,
in
andadvance
wall, irrespective of the type of slab works (i.e., HPCSS and CIPSS). That
of slab installation, it is necessary to complete a common process (CP) of the three following is, in advance of slab
installation, it is necessary
work activities: to complete
(i) preparation, a common
(ii) column process
and beam (CP) of and
installation, the three following
(iii) wall work activities:
installation.
(i) preparation,
As shown (ii)incolumn
Figure and
2, (i)beam installation,
preparation andfour
includes (iii)tasks
wall including
installation.marking (CP 1), horizontal
stand installation
As shown (CP 2,
in Figure 2),(i)
rebar delivery includes
preparation (CP 3), andfourform
tasksand supportmarking
including delivery(CP(CP1),4).horizontal
This is
followed by the three following work tasks to complete column and beam
stand installation (CP 2), rebar delivery (CP 3), and form and support delivery (CP 4). This is followed installation activity:
by column
the three rebar installation
following work(CP 5), column
tasks to completeform column
installation
and(CP 6), and
beam beam form
installation installation
activity: column (CPrebar
7).
With respect
installation (CPto 5),the final common
column activity, wall
form installation (CPinstallation
6), and beam workformrequires three common
installation work respect
(CP 7). With tasks
including
to the wall form
final common installation
activity, wall (one side) (CP
installation 8), wall
work requiresrebarthree
installation
common (CP 9), and
work taskswall form
including
completion (CP 10). With respect to common work tasks (CPs 1 to 10),
wall form installation (one side) (CP 8), wall rebar installation (CP 9), and wall form completionform labor, steel labor, and a
tower crane are continuously input to implement the work tasks.
(CP 10). With respect to common work tasks (CPs 1 to 10), form labor, steel labor, and a tower crane
are continuously input to implement the work tasks.
Preparation Column and Beam installation Wall installation
CP 1 CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 CP 5 CP 6 CP 7 CP 8 CP 9 CP 10
Work
Start
Marking Horizontal stand Rebar Form & Support Column rebar Column form install Beam form Wall form Wall rebar installation Wall form completion
installation delivery delivery installation installation Installation(half)
Form installation Rebar installation Concrete work Form removal
CIP 1 CIP 2 CIP 3 CIP 4 CIP 5 CIP 6 CIP 7 CIP 8 CIP 9
Work
End
Form & Support Slab form installation Rebar Beam rebar Rebar Slab rebar installation Concrete placing and Form removal (Beam) Form removal(Slab)
delivery delivery installation delivery Curing
Slab
work Concrete work Form removal
process
PC Slab placing and rebar installation
<Legend>
HPC 1 HPC 2 HPC 3 HPC 4 HPC 5 HPC 6
CP : Common Process
Work CIP : Cast In Place Slab
End HPC : Half-PC Slab

: Work
PC Slab lifting and Beam rebar Slab rebar(=transverse Concrete placing and Form removal (Beam)
Rebar
install installation rebar) installation Curing (Toping) : Delivery
delivery
Figure 2. Work process of HPCSS and CIPSS.

Figure 2. Work process of HPCSS and CIPSS.
After completing the common process, different slab work processes are initiated based on the
typeAfter
of slabcompleting
system (i.e., the common
HPCSS andprocess,
CIPSS), as different
shown slab work2.processes
in Figure are initiated
If a conventional based on
slab system the
(i.e.,
type of slab system (i.e., HPCSS and CIPSS), as shown in Figure 2.
CIPSS) is applied, then the four following work activities are required: (i) form installation, (ii) rebarIf a conventional slab system
(i.e., CIPSS) is
installation, applied,
(iii) concretethen work, theand
four(iv)following work activities
form removal. As shown areinrequired:
the figure, (i) form
forminstallation
installation,
(ii) rebar installation, (iii) concrete work, and (iv) form removal.
consists of two work tasks including form and support delivery (CIP 1) and slab form installation As shown in the figure, form
installation consists of two work tasks including form and support
(CIP 2). Rebar installation requires two works and two deliveries, namely, beam rebar delivery (CIP delivery (CIP 1) and slab form
installation
3), beam rebar (CIPinstallation
2). Rebar installation
(CIP 4), slabrequires two works
rebar delivery (CIPand two slab
5), and deliveries, namely, beam
rebar installation (CIPrebar
5).
delivery (CIP 3), beam rebar installation (CIP 4), slab rebar delivery
Following the rebar installation work, concrete placing and curing (CIP 7) is conducted, and this is (CIP 5), and slab rebar installation
(CIP 5). Following
followed by form removalthe rebar worksinstallation work,and
for the beam concrete placing
slab (CIPs 8 andand9).curing (CIP 7) to
With respect is the
conducted,
CIPSS
and
work this is followed
process, by form
existing removal
resources such works for the
as form andbeamrebarand slaband
labor (CIPs 8 and 9).
a tower craneWith arerespect to the
constantly
CIPSS work process, existing resources such as form and rebar labor
input, and the concrete labor and pump car are freshly input to perform the concrete placement task. and a tower crane are constantly
input,The andthree
the concrete
following labor
work and pump car
activities areare freshlytoinput
required applytoan perform
HPCSS:the (i)concrete
slab placing placement
and rebartask.
The three
installation (HPCsfollowing
1 to 4),work activities
(ii) concrete workare(HPC
required 5), andto apply an removal
(iii) form HPCSS: (HPC (i) slab6).placing and rebar
The differences
installation
between HPCSS (HPCs 1 toCIPSS
and 4), (ii)are
concrete work
identified (HPC
from the5), and (iii)
process formplacing
of slab removal and(HPCform6).removal
The differences
works.
between
That is, the HPCSS and CIPSS
application are identified
of HPCSS allows for from
the the process of and
simplification slab removal
placing and of two formwork removal works.
tasks when
That is, thewith
compared application
that of theof HPCSS allows for
CIPSS process. thethe
First, simplification
form installation and removal
and slabof twoinstallation
rebar work taskstasks when
are eliminated
compared with thatand ofsimplified,
the CIPSSand following
process. First,concrete
the formcuring, thereand
installation is no
slabneed
rebar forinstallation
the slab formtasks
removal
are task in
eliminated andthesimplified,
HPCSS process. and following concrete curing, there is no need for the slab form removal
task in the HPCSS process.
4. Simulation Modeling and Implementation
4. Simulation Modeling and Implementation
The measurement of the construction productivity of HPCSS and CIPSS was conducted by
using The
themeasurement
cyclic operation of the construction
network (CYCLONE)productivity
method of developed
HPCSS andbyCIPSS Halpin was conducted
and Riggs [15]. by This
using
the cyclic is
method operation
widely network
used in (CYCLONE)
related research method developed
fields. by Halpin
Furthermore, and Riggsis[15].
CYCLONE This method is
a discrete-event
widely
simulationusedmethod
in relatedthat research
focusesfields. Furthermore,
on construction work CYCLONE
tasks, andisthus, a discrete-event
this method simulation method
is widely applied
to model
that focuses repetitive construction
on construction workwork.tasks,Inandaddition,
thus, this CYCLONE
method is is widely
utilizedapplied
as a management tool to
to model repetitive
analyze construction
construction work. In productivity
addition, CYCLONE based onisthe logicalasconnections
utilized a management between
tool to work
analyzetasks, duration,
construction
and resources,
productivity and on
based thus,theCYCLONE can be used
logical connections to determine
between the influence
work tasks, duration,ofand specific work tasks
resources, on
and thus,
the overall can
CYCLONE construction
be used toproductivity
determine the ininfluence
conjunction with variations
of specific work tasksinondurationthe overall andconstruction
resources
assigned to each
productivity work taskwith
in conjunction [16,17]. More in
variations information
duration and on resources
CYCLONE including
assigned modeling
to each work task elements
[16,17].
can beinformation
More found in theon study
CYCLONEby Halpin and Riggs
including [15]. elements can be found in the study by Halpin
modeling
and Riggs [15].
4.1. Simulation Modeling

4.1.Using
Simulation
CYCLONEModeling and information with respect to the case study including the work processes
(i.e., Figure
Using2) and theirand
CYCLONE precedence
informationrelationships,
with respectwe to developed
the case study CYCLONE
including models
the workofprocesses
CIPSS and
HPCSS, as shown
(i.e., Figure 2) and in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
their precedence relationships,Aswe shown in theCYCLONE
developed figures, themodels
two simulation
of CIPSS models
and
HPCSS,
consist as shown
of the in Figures
two following 3 and
parts: (i)4,CP respectively.
(i.e., elements As denoted
shown inby thethefigures,
green the
areatwo simulation
in Figure 3) and
models
CIPSS consist
(i.e., elementsof thedenoted
two following
by theparts: (i) CP
red area in(i.e., elements
Figure 3) parts denoted
in theby the green
model area
for the in Figure 3)
traditional slab
and CIPSS (i.e., elements denoted by the red area in Figure 3) parts in the
system installation process and (ii) CP (i.e., elements denoted by the green area in Figure 4) and HPCSS model for the traditional
slab
(i.e., system installation
elements denoted by process
the blueandarea
(ii) CP (i.e., elements
in Figure 4) partsdenoted by the green
in the model for thearea in Figure
targeted slab4)system
and
HPCSS (i.e.,
installation elements
process. denoted
In both by the
figures, (1)blue
commonarea in Figure
work 4) parts(depicted
activities in the modelas CP1forto
theCP10
targeted slab 2)
in Figure
system installation process. In both figures, (1) common work activities
are represented by Nodes 1 to 17 in Figures 3 and 4, and (2) indigenous work activities (explained (depicted as CP1 to CP10 in
Figure 2) are represented by Nodes 1 to 17 in Figures 3 and 4, and (2)
based on CIP 1 to 9 and HPC 1 to 6 in Figure 2) are represented by (i) Nodes 18 to 30 in Figure 3 for indigenous work activities
(explained based on CIP 1 to 9 and HPC 1 to 6 in Figure 2) are represented by (i) Nodes 18 to 30 in
CIPSS and (ii) Nodes 18 to 27 in Figure 4 for HPCSS. Moreover, it is assumed that construction for
Figure 3 for CIPSS and (ii) Nodes 18 to 27 in Figure 4 for HPCSS. Moreover, it is assumed that
a floor is completed after the completion of concrete curing and form removal tasks, which follow
construction for a floor is completed after the completion of concrete curing and form removal tasks,
tasks of concrete placing work. However, both simulation models did not include two tasks after
which follow tasks of concrete placing work. However, both simulation models did not include two
concrete placement, namely, concrete curing and form removal works, because it is not necessary to
tasks after concrete placement, namely, concrete curing and form removal works, because it is not
input specific
necessary resources
to input for resources
specific the concrete curing
for the work,
concrete and work,
curing this otherwise creates noise
and this otherwise in noise
creates analyzing
in
other
analyzing other labor crew productivities and idleness. In addition, form removal work cannot befor
labor crew productivities and idleness. In addition, form removal work cannot be initiated
a long timefor
initiated (i.e., typically
a long time4(i.e.,
to 13typically
working4 days), until concrete
to 13 working days),curing is finished,
until concrete andisthis
curing subsequently
finished, and
influences crew productivity measurement.
this subsequently influences crew productivity measurement.
CP(common process)
Form Removal R1
(Slab) Rebar
Horizontal Horizontal
Marking Stand Delivery Delivery
Marking Stand
Start Ready Installation Ready Ready
2 Ready Installation (C*/W*)
Form Removal 1 3 5
4 6
(Column, Beam) x16
Next Floor
R2
Curing Form
Dummy
Crew
7
33
31 Rebar C1
Wall Form
Installation
Installation Ready C3
(2/2) (W)
17 14 F1 F3 C4
Form Form
Installation Delivery Crane
Concrete Concrete Ready
Crew Placement (C/B/W) (C/B*/W) 34 C5
C1 11
8
36 30 Form Wall Form Column/Beam
Installation Wall Rebar
Installation Form
R4
Ready Installation Installation C2
(1/2)
(W) 15 12
16 13
R5
Concrete R6 P2 P3 Column Rebar
Rebar Installation
Placement Ready
Installation
Ready P1 F1 F2 F3 10 9
29
Slab Slab Slab R3

Installation Form/Support Dummy Form/Support
Ready Installation 20 Fix
18 19 21
C2
CON # C3
28 C5 C4
Slab Beam
Slab Rebar Slab Rebar Rebar Beam Rebar Beam Rebar Rebar
Installation Delivery Installation Installation Delivery Installation
27 26 Ready 24 23 Ready
25 22
P4
Available
Rebar of Slab
CIPSS Crew Upper Site
37
35 P1
(Traditional slab system) R2 R1
P3
<NOTICE> R4 R3
* C: Column, B: Beam, W: Wall P4
R6 R5
Figure 3. Cyclic operation network (CYCLONE) model for CIPSS installation work.
Figure 3. Cyclic operation network (CYCLONE) model for CIPSS installation work.
CP(common process)
R1
Horizontal Horizontal Rebar

Marking Stand Delivery Delivery
Marking Stand
Start Ready Installation Ready Ready
2 Ready Installation (C*/W*)
Form Removal 1 3 5
4 6
(Column, Beam) x16
Next Floor
R2
Curing Form
Dummy
Crew
7
30
28 Rebar C1
Wall Form
Installation
Installation Ready C3
(2/2) (W)
17 14 F1 F2 C4
Form Form
Installation Delivery Crane
Concrete Concrete Ready
Crew Placement (C/B/W) (C/B*/W) 31
C1 11
8
33 27 Form Wall Form Column/Beam
Installation Wall Rebar
Installation Form
R4
Ready Installation C2
(1/2) Installation
(W) 15 12
16 13
Column Rebar
Concrete
Rebar Installation
Placement
Installation Ready
Ready C2 C3 F2 10 9
26
Half-PC Rebar
Slab Half-PC R3
Slab Installation
Installation
Ready Slab Lifting Installation
Ready
19 (B/S*)
18 20 21
CON # F1
25 C4
Beam/Slab
Slab Rebar Beam Rebar
Rebar
Installation Installation
Delivery
24 23
22
HPCSS Rebar
Crew
(Half-PC slab process) 32
R2
<NOTICE> R1
* C: Column, B: Beam, W: Wall, S: Slab R4
R3
Figure 4. CYCLONE model for HPCSS installation work.

Figure 4. CYCLONE model for HPCSS installation work.
4.2. Simulation Model Implementation and Validation
4.2. Simulation Model Implementation and Validation
Here, we remark that it is necessary to define information related to duration and resources
Here, we remarkmodeling
with CYCLONE that it is necessary
elements COMBI,to defineNORMAL,
information andrelated
QUEUE to duration
nodes to and resources
implement the with
CYCLONECYCLONE simulation.
modeling The coding
elements COMBI, directions
NORMAL, of CYCLONE
and QUEUE indicated
nodes that
to (i) the duration
implement thedata for
CYCLONE
each work task that is connected to another, in conjunction with the
simulation. The coding directions of CYCLONE indicated that (i) the duration data for each work precedence relationship, is task
located at the COMBI or NORMAL nodes and (ii) the resource type and quantity
that is connected to another, in conjunction with the precedence relationship, is located at the COMBI of each work task
are located at the QUEUE node. Information related to duration and resources is stochastically
or NORMAL nodes and (ii) the resource type and quantity of each work task are located at the QUEUE
collected based on construction records or specifications of each task while the duration data of
node. Information related to duration and resources is stochastically collected based on construction
newly adopted work tasks are often gathered based on expert opinions (i.e., a deterministic method).
records or specifications
Extant research indicatesof each task
that it while the
is possible duration
to acquire data data
reliable of newly
on work adopted
duration work
if it tasks are often
is possible
gathered based on expert opinions (i.e., a deterministic method). Extant research
to derive various probabilistic distributions including normal, beta, and triangular distributions indicates that it
is possible
from rawto acquire reliable data
data. Furthermore, it isonwidely
work known
duration thatifaitbeta
is possible to derive
distribution various for
is appropriate probabilistic
work
distributions including data
duration simulation normal, beta, andittriangular
[18]. However, is not possibledistributions
to follow thefrom
betaraw data. Furthermore,
distribution in this study it is
widely due to practical
known that a limitations in termsisof
beta distribution the low number
appropriate for workof HPCSS
durationcases. Conversely,
simulation dataa [18].
triangular
However,
distribution is not significantly affected by the number of samples in the
it is not possible to follow the beta distribution in this study due to practical limitations in data, and thus, it can ensure
terms of
the lowthatnumber
the collected data is reliable
of HPCSS cases. and accurate [17,19,20].
Conversely, a triangular distribution is not significantly affected
Therefore, duration data of work tasks on CP and CIPSS are set by using a triangular
by the number of samples in the data, and thus, it can ensure that the collected data is reliable and
distribution based on information to construct the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors of the building of interest
accurate [17,19,20].
(case building). Similarly, duration data of the work tasks on HPCSS are defined using
Therefore,
informationduration data16ofhalf-PC
on installing work tasksslabs on
on CP
the and CIPSS
5th floor. Inare set byresource
addition, using a data
triangular
for each distribution
work
basedtaskon corresponding
information to to construct
CP, CIPSS,the and2nd,HPCSS3rd,areand 4th floors
derived of the building
from construction records of ofinterest
the case(case
building).
building.Similarly, duration data of the work tasks on HPCSS are defined using information on
installing 16 half-PC slabs on the 5th floor. In addition, resource data for each work task corresponding
to CP, CIPSS, and HPCSS are derived from construction records of the case building.
Table 2 lists the resource and duration input data for each work task shown in Figures 3 and 4.
For example, from the table, we note that marking (Node 2) and horizontal stand installation (Node 4)
most probably required 8 h based on the construction record of the case project. In addition, the
duration of concrete placement (Node 27 in HPCSS and Node 30 in CIPSS) is set at 8 h by comparatively
using a deterministic method.
Table 2. Resource and duration data for each work task.
Resource Duration (hours)

Remark Node Work Tasks
Crew Equipment Minimum Most Likely Maximum
2 Marking Form - 7 8 9
4 Horizontal stand install Form - 7 8 9
6 Rebar delivery (C/W) Rebar Crane 0.75 1 1.25
8 Form delivery (C/W/B) Form Crane 2.5 3 3.5
CP 10 Column rebar installation Rebar - 15 16 17
12 Column/beam form installation Form Crane 26 28 30
13 Wall form installation (1/2) Form - 3 4 5
15 Wall rebar installation Rebar - 7 8 9
17 Wall form installation (2/2) Form - 3 4 5
19 Slab form/support delivery Form Crane 3 4 5
21 Slab form installation Form - 52 56 60
23 Beam rebar delivery Rebar Crane 2.5 3 3.5
CIPSS 24 Beam rebar installation Rebar - 22 24 26
26 Slab rebar delivery Rebar Crane 2.5 3 3.5
27 Slab rebar installation Rebar - 22 24 26
30 Concrete placement Concrete Pump Car - 8 -
19 Half-PC slab lifting Form Crane 15 16 17
20 Half-PC slab installation Form - 7 8 9
22 Beam/Slab rebar delivery Rebar Crane 2.5 3 3.5
HPCSS
23 Beam rebar installation Rebar - 22 24 26
24 Slab rebar installation Rebar - 7 8 9
27 Concrete placement Concrete Pump Car - 8 -
The simulation was implemented with the simulation models, and input data represented by
Figures 3 and 4 and Table 2 to analyze the construction productivity for types of work tasks and
resources. The simulation results show that (i) first, the required cycle time for constructing each floor
is calculated as 174.6 h and 103.3 h for CIPSS and HPCSS, respectively, (ii) construction productivity
corresponds to 0.0057 (cycle/h) and 0.0097 (cycle/h) for CIPSS and HPCSS, respectively, and (iii)
finally, these results can be interpreted as the delivery of higher productivity by HPCSS. A detailed
explanation of these results is described in the Findings and discussion section.
In order to conduct a simulation study of the effects of HPCSS on construction productivity,
it is necessary to verify if the developed simulation model can adequately reflect actual construction
data [20]. In the study, this verification was conducted based on comparing two types of data, namely,
collected data from the actual case and simulated data from each model. That is, the study explores
the following: (i) the extent to which the actual and simulated durations are identical for each work task
and (ii) the manner in which events during the simulation chronologically occurred when compared
with the actual construction process.
Table 3 lists the percentage difference between the simulated and actual durations for each work
task. For example, with respect to Node 2 (i.e., marking in Table 2), the simulated and actual
durations correspond to 7.9 h and 8.0 h, respectively, and subsequently, the percentage difference
of sum is estimated as 1.935% (i.e., |0.1019 0.1000|/0.1000 100). A similar method is used to
determine that after calculating the percentage difference of the sub-totals for all tasks (i.e., Nodes 2
to 30 for CIPSS and Nodes 2 to 27 for HPCSS), the lowest value corresponds to 0.443% for Node 27
for CIPSS, while the highest value corresponds to 23.871% for Node 6 for CP. Furthermore, (i) Nodes
in the CP process (i.e., Nodes 2 to 17) exhibit an average difference of 85.723%, (ii) Nodes in CIPSS
display an average difference of 3.096%, and (iii) Nodes in HPCSS exhibit an average difference of
12.710%. The results indicate that the developed models could be interpreted as being reliable in terms
of the accuracy of construction duration.
Table 3. Simulated and actual durations for each work task.
Durations From Simulation Duration from Case Study

Remark Node Percentage Difference (%)
Rate of (a) Rate of (b) (=|aa bb|/ bb 100)
Measured (a) Measured (b)
on Sum (aa) on Sum (bb)
2 7.9 0.1019 8.0 0.1000 1.935
4 7.8 0.1006 8.0 0.1000 0.645
6 1.2 0.0155 1.0 0.0125 23.871
CP 8 2.8 0.0361 3.0 0.0375 3.656
10 14.9 0.1923 16.0 0.2000 3.871
12 27.9 0.3600 28.0 0.3500 2.857
1317 15 0.1935 16.0 0.2000 3.226
sum 77.5 1.0000 80.0 1.0000
Average 5.723
19 3.9 0.0324 4.0 0.0328 1.286
21 55.4 0.4598 56.0 0.4590 0.160
23 2.5 0.0207 3.0 0.0246 15.629
CIPSS 24 24.1 0.2000 24.0 0.1967 1.667
26 3 0.0249 3.0 0.0246 1.245
27 23.6 0.1959 24.0 0.1967 0.443
30 8 0.0664 8.0 0.0656 1.245
Sum 120.5 1.0000 122.0 1.0000
Average 3.096
1920 18.6 0.3131 24.0 0.3582 12.584
22 3 0.0505 3.0 0.0448 12.795
23 23.7 0.3990 24.0 0.3582 11.385
HPCSS
24 6.1 0.1027 8.0 0.1194 13.994
27 8 0.1347 8.0 0.1194 12.795
Sum 59.4 1.0000 67.0 1.0000
Average 12.710
Figure 5 compares the simulation results and actual case records, which enables us to examine as to
whether the operation of the developed simulation model is identical to the actual work process. That
is, the figure lists the HPCSS events that (i) are chronologically completed during the implementation
of simulation (i.e., the top panel of the figure) and (ii) chronologically reported from actual construction
records (i.e., bottom panel of the figure). In addition, based on COMBI (Nodes 19, 22, and 27) and
NORMAL (Nodes 20, 23, and 24) elements with defined durations, the figure captures the simulated
events from the initial task of half-PC installation (i.e., Node 19 in Figure 4) assuming that the initiation
time of node 19 is converted to zero. The principal results of comparison are as follows:
As shown in the figure, the installation of the first HPC slab unit is performed in conjunction with
the following five tasks: HPC slab lifting (chronological list 1), HPC slab installation (chronological
list 2), rebar delivery (chronological list 3), beam rebar installation (chronological list 5), and slab rebar
installation (chronological list 7). Under this condition, the simulation time for the aforementioned
tasks corresponds to 3.6 h while actual construction time for the first HPC slab unit from the record
corresponds to 4.0 h, as denoted by A in the figure. Similarly, the installation work for the second
HPC slab unit is completed in 6.6 h as per the simulation result and 6.0 h as per the actual record
(Refer to B in Figure 5). This result suggests that the time to complete the first slab as measured
by the simulation is less than the time indicated by the actual record (i.e., 0.6 h), while the time to
complete the second slab unit in the actual record is less than that in the simulation by a maximum
of 0.6 h. In addition, the time to complete the installation of the last slab (i.e., 16th slab) is 41.2 h
as per the simulation and 48 h per by the actual record. According to Hong et al. [19], a simulation
model developed using the actual data can yield (i) productivity rates that are closer to that in an
ideal situation and (ii) lower uncertainty. Subsequently, the results of the simulation are superior in
consistency when compared with those obtained from the actual data. From this viewpoint, the actual
record reveals a buffer between the two works, as indicated by C in Figure 5, although this buffer
does Sustainability
not exist in the
2017, simulation result. Consequently, this indicates that the simulated completion
9, 1268 10 of 15 time
of the final unit is less than that in the actual record.
Moreover,
Moreover, the simulation
the simulation result
result indicates
indicates that
that thethe worktasks
work tasksfor
forthe
thefirst
firstand
andsecond
second units
units ofof slabs
slabs are simultaneously ongoing, and this is also observed in the operations
are simultaneously ongoing, and this is also observed in the operations from the actual constructionfrom the actual
construction record (Refer to D in Figure 5). Thus, the aforementioned results indicate that the
record (Refer to D in Figure 5). Thus, the aforementioned results indicate that the developed
developed simulation models are sufficiently accurate to be of value in further analysis.
simulation models are sufficiently accurate to be of value in further analysis.
Chronological list
14 Node 24
13 Node
20
: Tasks for HPCS unit # 4
12 : Tasks for HPCS unit # 3 Node 23
: Tasks for HPCS unit # 2 HPCSS Unit #3 Node 19

10, 11 Initiated Node
Simulation results
: Tasks for HPCS unit # 1 20

Node HPCSS Unit #4
8, 9 22 Initiated
Node 19
7 HPCSS Unit #2 Node

Initiated 24
6 Node
20
5 Node 23
4 HPCSS Unit #1 Node 19

Initiated
Node
22 C
1,2,3 Node
20 D B
Node 19 A
Simulation time
1.0h 1.6h 2.7h 3.1h 3.6h 4.0h 5.0h 6.0h 6.6h 7.0h
1.5h
Form Node Node Node

Actual record
Crew 20 20 20
Record Node 19 Node 19 Node 19 Node 19
Rebar Rebar Setting Nodes 23 and 24 Nodes 23 and 24
Crew Node 22
Record Node 22
Actual time
1.5h 2.0h 4.0h 6.0h
Figure 5. Chronological list of simulation results and actual records.

Figure 5. Chronological list of simulation results and actual records.
5. Findings and Discussion
5. Findings and Discussion
The work productivities of each set of crew and equipment are explored based on the
The work productivities
simulation of each
statistics, to identify theset of crew and
advantages and equipment
disadvantages areofexplored based
HPCSS over on the
those simulation
of CIPSS.
statistics, to identify
The results thethat
indicate advantages andresources
the most idle disadvantages
in the two of HPCSS over correspond
slab methods those of CIPSS. The results
to concrete
crew
indicate (95.42%
that idle for
the most idleCIPSS and 92.26%
resources in theidle
twoforslab
HPCSS in Table
methods 4) followedtobyconcrete
correspond crane (70.97%
crew for
(95.42%
CIPSS and 41.71% for HPCSS), rebar crew (50.79% for CIPSS and 34.98%
idle for CIPSS and 92.26% idle for HPCSS in Table 4) followed by crane (70.97% for CIPSS and for HPCSS), and form
crew
41.71% for (0.03%
HPCSS),forrebar
CIPSS crew
and 0.22% for HPCSS
(50.79% in Table
for CIPSS and 4). In summary,
34.98% the types
for HPCSS), and of resources
form crewfor(0.03%
installing HPCSS exhibit relatively less idle states, and this suggests that each crew and equipment
for CIPSS and 0.22% for HPCSS in Table 4). In summary, the types of resources for installing HPCSS
for HPCSS work in a smoother manner with less interruption when compared with the case of
exhibit relatively less idle states, and this suggests that each crew and equipment for HPCSS work
CIPSS. Furthermore, the relatively low idle state also indicates that it is necessary to consider
in a smoother manner
additional work crewwith less interruption
or equipment when
in terms of comparedinwith
improvements workthe case of CIPSS. Furthermore,
productivity.
the relatively
In addition to the basic analysis shown above, we conduct a sensitivityadditional
low idle state also indicates that it is necessary to consider analysis towork crew or
examine
equipment
changesininterms of improvements
productivity in workinproductivity.
due to the changes input resources. The sensitivity analysis determines
the optimal combination of resource inputs and identifies resources that have a significant influence
on the work productivity of HPCSS and CIPSS. Conversely, a cost data survey of the input resources
is used to analyze work productivity with respect to the input cost.
In addition to the basic analysis shown above, we conduct a sensitivity analysis to examine
changes in productivity due to the changes in input resources. The sensitivity analysis determines the
optimal combination of resource inputs and identifies resources that have a significant influence on
the work productivity of HPCSS and CIPSS. Conversely, a cost data survey of the input resources is
used to analyze work productivity with respect to the input cost.
1268
ity
ustainability
2017, Sustainability
9, 1268
2017, Sustainability
9, 1268
2017, 9, 1268
2017,
Sustainability
9, 1268 2017,Sustainability
9, 1268 2017,
Sustainability
Table 4. Simulation results in terms of percent of idleness of a resource.
9, 1268 Sustainability
2017, 9, 12682017,
Sustainability
9,
111268
of 15 2017,
11Sustainability
9,
of 1268
15 11 of 2017,
15 119,of1268
15 11 of 15 11 of 15 11 of 15 11 of 15 11 of
Division Node Resource Average Units Idle Times not Empty Average Wait Time % Idle
Table 4. Simulation
Table 4. Table
Simulation
results
4. Table
Simulation
in terms
results
4. Table
Simulation
ofinresults
percent
terms
4. Simulation
in
of
of
results
Table
terms
percent
idleness
4.
in
of
results
Simulation
terms
of
percent
ofidleness
a resource.
in
ofTable
terms
of
percent
results
idleness
of 4.
aofresource.
Simulation
of
percent
inidleness
of
Table
terms
a resource.
of4.
of
results
idleness
ofSimulation
percent
Table
a resource.
inof
4.
terms
ofaSimulation
idleness
resource.
results
Table
of percent
inof4.terms
results
aSimulation
resource.
of idleness
ofinTable
percent
terms
results
of
4.of
of
Simulation
a percent
resource.
idleness
in terms
ofof
results
of
idleness
apercent
resource.
in of
terms
ofa idleness
resource.
of percent
of a resource.
of idleness of
33 Form Crew 0 0 0 0.03
Division
Resource
NodeDivision
Node
Resource
Division
Average
Node
Resource
Units
Average
Node
Division
Resource
IdleAverage
Units 34Average
Resource
Node
Times
Idle
Units
Division Crane
notResource
Idle
Times
Empty
Average
Units
Node
not
Idle
Division
Times
Units
Empty
Average
Average
not
Resource
Idle
Times
Division
Empty
Node
Wait 0.8
Average
Units
not
Times
Time
Empty
Idle
Resource
Node
Average
Wait
Division
not%Time
Empty
Idle
Times
Average
Wait
Units
Resource
Node
Average
Time
not
Idle 124
%Division
Average
Wait
Idle
Empty
Resource
Units
Time
%
Average
Times
Wait
Idle
Node
Idle
Average
Time
not
% Units
Idle
Empty
Average
Resource
Times
Wait
Idle
% Idle 1.3
Time
not
Units
Average
Times
Empty
Idle
Average
%not
Wait
IdleEmpty70.97
Average
Time
Times
Units Idle
not
Wait
%Average
Empty
Idle
Time
Times
WaitAverage
%
not
Time
Idle
Empty
Wait
% IdT
CIPSS
Form
33 CrewForm
33 CrewForm
33 Crew
0 Form
33 Crew 35
0Form 33
Crew
0 Rebar
0Form0 CrewCrew
33
00 Form 0330 0 0.5
0 Crew Form
0330Crew
0.03
Form
0 Crew0 88.7
3300.03 Form
0 0.03
0Crew
33 000.03Form
0 0.03 01.1
Crew 0.03
00 0 50.79 00 0.03 0 0.03
0 0 0.03
Crane
34 34Crane 34Crane
0.8 34Crane 360.8 124 Conc.
0.8 Crane
34 Crane
0.8 Crew
124
340.8 124
Crane
1.30.8124 1 1.3
34 Crane
34
124 70.97
0.8
1.3Crane
34 1.3 166.6
124
70.97 0.8Crane
70.97
1.3 34124
0.8
70.971.3Crane
70.9783.3
124
0.8 124 0.8 95.42
70.97
1.3 1.3
12470.97 1.3 12470.97 1.3 70.97
CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS
Rebar
35 CrewRebar
35 CrewRebar
35 0.5
Crew
Rebar
35 Crew
0.5
Rebar35
Crew
0.5 88.7
Rebar
0.5 Crew
88.7
350.5 Rebar
88.7 1.1
Crew
35
0.588.7 Rebar
30 Form Crew 0 1.1
35
88.7
Crew
50.79
Rebar
0.5
1.1 35Crew
88.7
50.79
1.1 Rebar
0.550.79
0.2 1.1Crew
3588.7
0.5
50.79Rebar
1.1 50.79
Crew
88.7
0.5
0 50.79
1.1
88.7 0.5 88.7
1.150.79 1.1 88.7
0.22 50.79 1.1 50.79
Conc.
36 CrewConc.
36 CrewConc.
36 Crew
1 Conc.
36 Crew
1Conc. 36
Crew
1 166.6
Conc.1 Crew
166.6
36 1 Conc.
166.683.3
Crew
361166.6Conc.
83.3
36
166.6
Crew
95.42
83.3
Conc.
1 166.6
Crew
3695.42
83.3 Conc.
1 95.42
83.3
Crew
36
166.6
195.42Conc.
83.3 95.42
Crew
166.6
1 95.42
83.3
166.6 1 166.6
83.395.42 83.3 166.6
95.42 83.395.42
31 Crane 0.5 43.1 0.5 41.71
Form
30 CrewForm
30 CrewForm 0 HPCSS
30 Crew Form
30 Crew
0Form 30
Crew
0 0.2Form0 Crew0.2
30 0 Form
0.2 Crew
0300 0.2 Form0300.2
Crew
0.22
Form
0 Crew
30
0.2
0.22
0 Form0 0.22
0Crew
300.2
00.22Form
0 0.22
Crew
0.2
0 0.22
00.2 0 0.2
0 0.22 0 0.2
0.22 0 0.22
32 Rebar Crew 0.4 36.1 0.6 34.98
Crane
31 31Crane 31Crane
0.5 31Crane
0.5 Crane
310.5 43.1 Crane
0.5 43.1
310.5 43.1
Crane
0.5
31
0.543.1 0.5Crane
31
43.1 41.71
0.5Crane
31
43.1
41.71
0.5 0.5Crane
41.71
0.5 3143.1
0.5
41.710.5Crane
41.71
43.1
0.5 41.71
0.5
43.1 0.5 43.1
0.541.71 0.5 43.1
41.71 0.5 41.71
HPCSS HPCSS HPCSS HPCSS 33 HPCSS Conc. CrewHPCSS HPCSS 0.9 HPCSS 95.3
HPCSS 47.6 92.26
Rebar
32 CrewRebar
32 CrewRebar
32 0.4
Crew
Rebar
32 Crew
0.4
Rebar32
Crew
0.4 36.1
Rebar
0.4 Crew
36.1
320.4 Rebar
36.1 0.6
Crew
32
0.436.1 Rebar
0.6
32
36.1
Crew
34.98
Rebar
0.4
0.6 32Crew
36.1
34.98
0.6 Rebar
0.434.98
0.6Crew
3236.1
0.4
34.98Rebar
0.6 34.98
Crew
36.1
0.4 34.98
0.6
36.1 0.4 36.1
0.634.98 0.6 36.1
34.98 0.6 34.98
Conc.
33 CrewConc.
33 CrewConc.
33 0.9
Crew
Conc.
33 Crew
0.9
Conc. 33
Crew
0.9 95.3
Conc.
0.9 Crew
95.3
330.9 Conc.
95.3 47.6
Crew
33
0.995.3 Conc.
47.6
33
95.3
Crew
92.26
47.6
Conc.
0.9 Crew
33
95.3
92.26
47.6 Conc.
0.992.26
47.6
Crew
3395.3
0.9
92.26Conc.
47.6 92.26
Crew
95.3
0.9 92.26
47.6
95.3 0.9 47.6
95.3
92.26 47.6 95.3
92.26 47.692.26
The change in the work crew for the sensitivity analysis is determined by analyzing the
e inchange
the
The workchange
inThe thecrew
change
work
inThe the
for crew
change
the
work
in the sensitivity
for
The
crew
work
inthe change
the for
sensitivity
crew
work
analysis
theinfor
The
sensitivity
crew
thetheanalysis
is
change
work
for
determined
sensitivity
the
analysis
The
crew
in
is sensitivity
the
determined
change
for
analysis
by
work
The
istheanalyzing
determined
inchange
sensitivity
analysis
crew
the
isbydetermined
work
The
analyzing
for
in
the
isby
the
the
change
analysis
determined
crew
analyzing
sensitivity
work the
byfor
inThe
isanalyzing
crew
the
determined
the
change
byanalysis
work
sensitivity
for
analyzing
the
the
crew
in issensitivity
by
theanalysis
determined
for
the
analyzing
work the crew
analysis
sensitivity
is determined
the
byfor analyzing
istheanalysis
determined
sensitivity
by the analyzing
is determined
by
analysis
analyzing
the isby det
ta
ction
rd.
onstruction
1268
ity That
record.
construction
9,is,
ustainability
2017, based
record.
That
construction
Sustainability
1268
2017, on construction
is,record.
That
based
the
Sustainability
9, 1268
2017, actual
is,
9, 1268construction
on
record.
That
2017,based
theworking
is,
actual
Sustainability
9, 1268 on record.
That
based
the
2017, record.
daily
is,
working That
construction
actual
onbased
the
report,
That
working
Sustainability
9, 1268 actual
dailyis,
on2017,
is, based
construction
the
the
record.
based
report,
working
actual
daily
form
1268on
Sustainability
9, Thaton the
construction
the
crew
report,
working
the
daily
record.
form
is,
actual
is
9,based
Sustainability
2017, the
1268
actual
input
report,
crew
daily
That
construction
form
working
2017,record.
onfrom
is
the
Sustainability
9,
11
working
report,
is,
the
crew
input
ofform
based
1268at
15actual
That
daily
is
the
from
2017,record.
crew
input
11
daily
construction
on
is,9,
form
report,
working
based
the
at
15isfrom
Sustainability
of 1268 That
crew
input
actual
11
report,
the
on
of daily
at
15is,
is
the
form
from
record.
2017,working
input
based
11
the
9,actual
report,
crew
at
15 from
of1268 That
on form
11daily
working
is
the
the
of input
at
is,
15form
crew
actual
report,
basedfrom
daily
crew
11
isat
working
on
ofthe isinput
report,
15the form
input
actual from
daily
crew
the
fromworking
form
11 report,
isat
of input
15 crew
the
daily
from
is
form
11 input
ofreport,
at
15crew
from
11th
is
of
eeast
p team,
to one
a maximum
least
upteam,
toone
aleast
up
maximum
team, at
oftoone
three
a upleast
maximum
team,
least
to
teams,one
ofathree
up
maximum
onesuch
to team,
of
team,
teams,
athree
maximum
that up
least
up
of
such
teams,
the to
three
toone ateam,
change
athat
of maximum
maximum
such
teams,
three
least
theinthat
up
change
such
one
teams,
the to
the
ofleast
form
team,
athatof
three
change
maximum
insuch three
one
the
crew
the
up
teams,
that
form
team,
change
to teams,
inamount
least
athe
the
ofsuch
maximum
crew
up
three
one
form
change
into
is
that
thesuch
amount
team,
ateams,
crewmaximum
form
the
in
least
ofup that
the
amount
three
change
issuch
crew
one athe
toform teams,
of
that
team, change
maximum
amount
in
iscrew
three
the
theup
such
form
amount
change
teams,
istoofin
that
acrew the
three
maximum
such
in
is
thetheform
amount
teams,
change
that
formof crew
thesuch
isthree
in
crew
change
the amount
that
amount
teams,
formthe
in the crew
change
such
isform
amount
that
in
crew
the
theisamount
change
form cr
determined
ned
1 to from
3. The
determined
1 same
to
from3.determined
The
method
1 to
fromis
same determined
3. The1isdetermined
method
to
from
applied
same
3. The1 method
to
issame
to
3. from
applied
from
determine
The 1toto
determined
method
issame
1applied
to 3.applied
determine
3.method
the
is
The The
to
change
determined
from
same same
determine
isthe
1applied
to
method
to
inchange method
determined
determine
3.
theThe
from
the
crane
toissame
change
in
determine
applied
1 the
to
from
the3.is
determined
from
method
craneapplied
The
change
in1tothe
to
1the
determine
same
to
from
2,crane 1to
is3.change
inapplied
from
The
method
the determine
determined
to
from
same
crane
2,
1the
into
tothe
1is
3.
change
determine
method
to
from
applied
The
crane
2,from the
same
1into
from
is1to
the
2, change
applied
the
tomethod
determine
crane
3.
1change
to
The 2,to in
from
is
same the
determine
applied
inthethe
1method
to crane
change
crane
2,tothe from
determine
is
in
from
change
applied
the1craneto1in
the
2,
tothe
from
determine
change
crane
1 toinfrom
2,the
the1cran
cha
to
rTable
om
he crew
rebar
1 to4.
theSimulation
from
3,Table
crew
rebar
and 4.crew
1 the
from
to
theTable
Simulation
3,results
rebar 4.crew
concrete
and
1tofrom
to Table
Simulation
the
3,in
the terms
results
and
1 4.the
crew Table
Simulation
concrete
rebar
from
to of
3, inresults
frompercent
and terms
crew
1 4.the
concrete
to
crew1Simulation
3,
thein
of
from
to of
results
Table
andterms
percent
fromidleness
concrete
rebar
2.
crew
1This
the 4.
to
1 in
of
results
Simulation
terms
of
percent
crew
from
to ofidleness
aThis
concrete
3,
process
the
crew
2.
and resource.
in
fromof
Table
rebar
1 terms
of
percent
from
to
the results
idleness
ofThis
4.
generated
crew
2.
process
the
1 aof
concrete
crew
to
1 resource.
Simulation
of
percent
rebar
from
to
3, inidleness
from
2. of
Table
terms
process
and athe
resource.
generated
36
This
crew
1 to
1 ofto
4.
of
results
idleness
of3,
scenarios
2. Simulation
percent
processTable
a36
generated
from
rebar
concrete
2, the rebar crew from 1 to 3, and the concrete crew from 1 to 2. This process generated 36 scenarios This resource.
and 1in of
4.
terms
of
scenarios
crew
process a2.
Simulation
idleness
generated
to
the
crew resource.
results
the
3,
36from Table
of
concrete
This
and percent
scenarios
rebar inof
generated
from 1
the 4.
process
36 to terms
results
a3,
crew
1 Simulation
resource.
of
scenarios
crew
concrete
to and
2.idleness
of
36 in
from Table
percent
terms
generated
from
This results
scenarios
thecrew
1 1 of
4. of
of
processSimulation
a36
concrete
toto 3,
from
2.percent
resource.
idleness
in
and terms
This
scenariosofof
generated
1
crew
the
to results
of
idleness
process
2. aThis
percent
resource.
concrete
from 36 in of
terms
ofa2.idleness
generated
1
process resource.
scenarios
to
crew of
This percent
from of
generated
36 atoresource.
processof2.36
scenarios
1 idleness
generated
This of
scenari
pro
based
nurce
the
Division combination
resource
on
Resource
Node based
the
Division
Node resource
oncombination
based
Resource the(Table
Division
Average
Node resource
on
combination
Resource the
Units 5).
based
Average
Node (Table
resource
combination
Division
Resource
Idle on 5).
(Table
the
Average
Units combination
Resource
Node
Times
Idleresource
based
5).
(Table
Average
Units
Division
not oncombination
Resource
Idle
Times
Empty 5).
Average
Units (Table
the based
Node
not resource
Idle
Division
Times
Units5).
Empty
Averageon (Table
Average
not based
the
Resource
Idle
Timescombination
Division
Empty
Node
Waitresource
on
5).
Average
Units
notTimes
Time the
Empty
Idle based
Resource
Node combination
resource
Average
Wait (Table
Division
not % Timeon
Empty
Idle
Times the
5).
Average
Wait
Units
Resourcecombination
Node resource
based
Average
Time
not
Idle
% (Table
Division
Average
Wait
Idle
Empty on 5).
Resource
Units
Time
% combination
Average
Times
Waitthe
Idle(Table
Node
Idle resource
Average
Time
not
%Units5).
Idle
Empty (Table
Average combination
Resource
Times
Wait
Idle
% Idle
Time
not
Units 5). Idle
Average
Times
Empty (Table
Average
%not
Wait
Idle Empty
Average
Time
Times5). Idle
Units not
Wait
%Average
Empty
Idle
Time Times
WaitAverage
%not
Time
Idle
EmptyWait
% IdT
based on the resource combination (Table 5).
Form33 CrewForm
33 Crew Form
33 Crew
0 Form
33 Crew 0Form 33Crew
0 0Form 0 Crew 33
00 Form
0 Crew
0330 0 Form 0330Crew0.03
Form
0 Crew
3300.03
0 Form0 0.03
0Crew33 000.03Form
0 0.03Crew0 0.03
00 0 00 0.03 0 0.03
0 0 0.03
ableCrane
5. Sensitivity
34 Table 5. Table
Sensitivity
34Craneanalysis
5.0.8
Table
Sensitivity
34Crane results
analysis
5. Table
Sensitivity
based
34Crane0.8analysis
results
5.on
CraneSensitivity
34 resource
based
0.8analysis
results
Table
124on 5.
based
combination
analysis
results
resource
Crane
0.8 Sensitivity
on
124
34 based
0.8results
resource
Table
combination
analysis
scenarios.
on
124 5.
based
resource
Sensitivity
combination
Crane
1.3
34 results
on
Table
scenarios.
0.8124 resource
combination
based
5.
1.3analysis
Crane
34
124scenarios.
Sensitivity
Table
combination
on
1.3results
70.97
0.8resource
5.
scenarios.
CraneSensitivity
34analysis
124 based
Table
70.97
1.3 combination
scenarios.
results
on
5.
analysis
0.8CraneSensitivity
resource
70.97
1.3 34based
124scenarios.
0.8Table
results
70.97combination
onanalysis
1.3 5.
resource
based
Sensitivity
Crane
70.970.8results
124 onscenarios.
combination
resource
analysis
based
124 combination
70.97
1.3 onresults
0.8scenarios.
resource
1.3
124based
combination
scenarios.
70.97 on1.3resource
124 scenarios.
70.97 combinat
1.3 70.97
CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS CIPSS
Rebar
35 CrewRebar
35 Crew Rebar
35 0.5Crew
Rebar
35 Crew0.5
Rebar35 Table
Crew
0.5 88.7 0.5Sensitivity
5.
Rebar Crew
88.7
350.5 Rebaranalysis
88.7 1.10.588.7results
Crew
35 Rebar
1.1
35
88.7 based
Crew 1.1 on
50.79
Rebar
0.5 35 resource
Crew
88.7
50.79
1.1 Rebar
0.550.79combination
1.1Crew
3588.7
0.5
50.79Rebar scenarios.
1.1 50.79
Crew
88.7
0.5 50.79
1.1
88.7 0.5 88.7
1.150.79 1.1 88.7 50.79 1.1 50.79
Conc.
36 CrewConc.
36 Crew Conc.
36 Construction
Crew
1 Conc.
36 Crew 1Conc. 36
Crew
1 166.6
Conc. 1 Crew
166.6
36 1 Conc.
166.6 83.3 Cost
Crew
361166.6 Productivity
Conc.
83.3
36 Cost
166.6
Crew Productivity
95.42
83.3 Cost
Conc.
1 Productivity
166.6
Crew
36 95.42
83.3 Cost
Conc.
1 Productivity
95.42
83.3 Cost
Crew
36 Productivity
166.6
1
95.42Conc.
83.3 Cost
95.42
Crew Productivity
166.6
1Productivity Cost1 Productivity
Cost Productivity
83.3Cost Productivit
Cos
Construction
Productivity
Construction
Productivity
Construction
Install
Productivity
Construction
Time
Productivity
InstallConstruction
Productivity
Time
Install Time
Install
Productivity
Construction
Time
Install Time Construction
Productivity
Install Time
Construction
Productivity
Install Time 95.42
83.3
166.6
Construction
Install 166.6
83.395.42
Productivity
Construction
TimeInstall Time 166.6
95.42
Productivity
Install Time 83.3 95.42
Insta
urce
FormInformation
ResourceResource
30 CrewFormInformation
30 Crew Resource
FormInformation
Resource
Information
30 (Cycle/Simulation
Crew
0 Form Information
Resource
30 (Cycle/Simulation
Crew
0Form 30Crew
0 0.2 Form Information
0Time)
Crew Resource
0.2
30 0Time)
Form
0.2Information
Resource
Crew(US$/Simulation
030Construction
0 0.2 Form Information
Resource
(US$/Simulation
0300.2
Crew
0.22
Form (US$/Simulation
Information
0Time) Resource
Crew
30
Productivity0.2
0.22 (US$/Simulation
Information
(US$/Simulation
Resource
0 (Cycle/Simulation
Form
0 (h/cycle)
0.22
0Install
Crew
30 0.2
00.22
TimeForm Information
(US$/Simulation
0 Time)
0.22
Crew
0.2
0(a)Cost 0.22 (US$/Simulation (US$/Simulation
00.2(a)(Cycle/Simulation
0 Time)
Productivity 0.2
0 (a) (US$/Simulation
0.22(b) (h/cycle)
0Time)0.2
0.22 (US
0 (h/cy
0.22
(Cycle/Simulation
Time) (a)
(Cycle/Simulation
Resource Information(h/cycle)
(Cycle/Simulation
(a) (b)
(h/cycle)
(a)
Time)
(Cycle/Simulation
(h/cycle)
(b)
(a)
Time) (h/cycle)
(b)
(a) (Cycle/Simulation
(h/cycle)
(b) (a) (b) Time)(Cycle/Simulation
(a)
(b) (h/cycle)
(Cycle/Simulation
(b)
Time)(h/cycle) (b)
(h/cycle) (a)
(b)
Scenario
31 Scenario
Crane Scenario
31Crane 0.5 Scenario
31Crane 31Crane0.5 Crane310.5Scenario
43.1 Crane
0.5 Scenario
43.1
310.5 43.1
Crane
0.50.543.1Time)
Scenario
31 0.5
Crane
31 (c)41.71
Scenario
43.1
(Cycle/Simulation Time)
0.5Time)
Crane(c)
31 Time)
43.1
41.71
0.5 (c)
Scenario
(a) 0.5 Time)
Crane
41.71
0.5 31(c)
Time)
43.1
0.5 (b)0.5(c)
41.71
(h/cycle) Crane
41.71 Time) (c)41.71
43.1
0.5 0.5
43.1 0.5
(US$/Simulation Time)
Time) (c)
41.71Time)
43.1
0.5
(c) 0.5 (c) Time)0.5
43.1
41.71 (c)41.71
HPCSS HPCSS HPCSS Scenario HPCSS HPCSS HPCSS HPCSS HPCSS HPCSS
Form
32Rebar
Rebar Form
Crew 32Conc.
Rebar Rebar
Form
32 Rebar
Crew
Rebar Conc.
Form
0.4
Crew 32 Rebar
Rebar Conc.
Crew
0.4 Form
Rebar Rebar
Conc.
32
Crew
0.4 36.1 Conc.
0.4Rebar
Rebar Form
Crew320.4Conc.
36.1 36.1Form
Rebar Rebar
0.6
Crew
32 Conc.
Form
0.436.1 Rebar
0.6
32Rebar
36.1
Crew 0.6 Form
34.98 Conc.
Rebar
0.4 Rebar
32
Crew
36.1
34.98 Conc.
0.6 Rebar
0.4 Rebar
Form
34.98
0.6Crew
3236.1
0.4 Conc.
34.98Rebar Rebar
0.6 34.98 0.4 Conc.
Crew
36.1 34.98
0.6
36.1 0.4 36.1
0.634.98 0.6 36.1 34.98 0.6 34.98
rane Crane Crane Crane HPCSSCrane HPCSS
FormCIPSS HPCSS
Crane CIPSSHPCSS
HPCSSCIPSS
Rebar HPCSS
Crane
CIPSS
HPCSS
Conc. CIPSSHPCSS
HPCSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
Crane
CIPSSHPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
Crane HPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS Crane
CIPSS
HPCSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSSCIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
CIPSS
HPCSS
Crane HPCSS
CIPSS
CIPSS
HPCSS HPCSS
CIPSS
CIPSS
CIPSS
HPCSS HPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS CIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSSCIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
CIPSSHPCSS
CIPSS
HPC
Crew
33Crew
Conc. Crew
Crew 33 Crew
Conc. Crew
Crew
Crew
Conc. Crew
Crew
33 0.9 Crew
Crew 33 Crew
Conc. Crew
Crew
0.9 Crew
Conc. 330.9 Crane
Crew
Crew 95.3Crew
0.9Crew
Conc. Crew
Crew330.9Crew
95.3 95.3Crew
Conc. 47.60.9HPCSS
Crew
Crew
33 Crew
95.3 Conc.
47.6
33 Crew
95.3
Crew 0.9CIPSS
92.26
47.6 Crew
Conc.Crew
Crew
Crew
33
95.3
92.26
47.6 Conc.
0.9HPCSS
Crew Crew
Crew
92.26
47.6Crew
3395.3
0.9CIPSS
Crew
92.26Conc.
47.6 92.26 0.9HPCSS
Crew
Crew
95.3 Crew 95.3 0.9CIPSS
92.26
47.6 47.6
95.3
92.26 47.6 95.3 92.26 47.692.26
Crew Crew Crew
1 1 1 11 1 111 10.0097
11 1 11 0.0097 1 0.0057
1 0.0097 11 10.0057 0.0097
103.09
1 1 0.0057 0.0097
1 1175.44
1103.09 0.0057
1 1 103.09
3.2303
0.0097
175.44 10.0057
1 103.09
175.44
3.2303
2.8323
11 1 103.09
0.0057
0.0097
175.44
3.2303
112.8323
1 175.44 13.2303
103.09
2.8323
10.00970.0057
113.2303
2.8323
175.44
0.0097
11 103.09
2.8323
0.0057
3.2303
1 0.0097175.44
0.0057
2.8323
103.09
1 3.2303175.44
103.09
0.0097
0.00572.8323 3.2303
175.44103.09
0.0057
3.2303
2.8323
175.44 103.09
2.8323
3.2
1 1 1 1 1 0.0097 0.0057 103.09 175.44 3.2303 2.8323
e1inchange
21the
The1work 1in
21 The
change the 2 1change
crew 1work
21 The
in the 1change
20.0096
for crew 1the
1 the
work
in 2for
121work
in0.0096
sensitivity
The
crew the 1for
change
the 0.0057
12work
0.0096
sensitivity
crew 1in
analysis
the 2for 2the
The 0.0057
0.0096
104.17
1change
sensitivity
crew the 1for
analysis
is work 0.0057
0.0096
2the
determined 2175.44
sensitivity 1in
104.17
analysis
The
crew 0.0057
1 analysis
12by
is sensitivity
the
determined
change
for 104.17
3.4046
0.0096
175.44
work
The
isthe 10.0057
analyzing21the
determined
inchange 104.17
175.44
3.4046
sensitivity
analysis
crew isby 3.0213
2determined
1work
1in
The 104.17
0.0057
0.0096
175.44
analyzing
for the
isby
the3.4046
the 1crew
23.0213
change 1sensitivity
analysis
determined 175.44
analyzing
work the
by 23.4046
1in
for 104.17
3.0213
The
is 20.0096
analyzing
crewthe 0.0057
1analysis
13.4046
determined
the
change
by 3.0213
work175.44
0.0096
sensitivity
for
analyzing
the1crew
the 2 104.17
in 3.0213
is0.0057
3.4046
1analyzing
sensitivity
by
the analysis 0.0096
determined
for
the
work 175.44
the 0.0057
3.0213
104.17
2 determined
crew
analysis 3.4046
sensitivity
is the
by for 175.44
104.17
0.0096
0.0057
analyzing
isthe 3.0213
analysis 3.4046
determined175.44
sensitivity
by the 104.17
0.0057
analyzing 3.4046
3.0213
is determined
by 175.44
analysisthe 104.17
analyzing is3.0213
by 3.4ta
det
2 1 1 1 2 0.0096 0.0057 104.17 175.44 3.4046 3.0213
1 31That
ction
rd.
onstruction 2 is,
record. 131based
construction 1 21on
record.
That 31 record.
construction
is, the210.0108
That
based 1is,
1construction
actual on 3the
211is,
record.
That
based 0.0108
working
actual
on
That1the
based 0.0066
21daily
0.0108
record.
is,
working13the
construction
actual
onbased 1working
0.0066
0.0108
report,
That 292.59
actual
daily
on 1construction
is,the
the0.0066
0.0108
3actual
record.
based 1151.52
report,
working
daily
form 1 92.59
on
That 0.0066
1the
23record.
construction
the
crew
report,
working
daily 5.3180
92.59
0.0108
151.52
form
is,
actual
is 10.0066
based
the
input 1That
report,
crew
daily 92.59
151.52
5.3180
4.8846
3is
2the
construction
form
working
record.
on
from 1 form
report,
is,
the
crew0.0066
input92.59
0.0108
151.52
based
at 5.3180
1is
actual
That
daily1the
4.8846
2record.
from
crew
input 151.52
35.3180
1isfrom
construction
on
is,form
report,
working
based
the
at 4.8846
92.59
1That
0.0108
crew
input
actual0.0066
the
on 2daily
15.3180
at 4.8846
is,
is151.52
the
form
from 0.0108
record.
working
input
based 1crew
actual1at from
report, 4.8846
92.59
0.0066
That
on 5.3180
2input
daily
working
is
the
theat
is, 0.0108
151.52
form
actual0.0066
report,
based 4.8846
192.59
from
daily
crew 5.3180
working
onthe
at 151.52
report,
the
is 0.0108
form92.59
0.0066
input
actual
daily 4.8846
crew
thefrom 5.3180
151.52
working
form
report,
is at 92.59
input 0.0066
crewthe5.3180
4.8846
daily
from
is 151.52
form
input
report,
at 92.59
crew4.8846
from 5.3
this
3 1 1 2 1 0.0108 0.0066 92.59 151.52 5.3180 4.8846
p1 team,
eeast 41 one
to 2up 141to
a maximum
least
team, one 2up2team,
aleast 1of
41to
maximum one
three2team,
a up 0.0112
11least
maximum 4of a4three
to
teams, 21 0.0112
up
maximum
one such
to
of1a1three
team,
teams,0.0068
2 least
0.0112
maximum
that up
of11the
such 4three
teams, to2change
one a0.0068
0.0112
that2such
of89.29
21three
maximum
team,
teams,the0.0068
least 0.0112
in4up
that 2147.06
21 89.29
change
such
one
teams,
the to
the a0.0068
ofleast
form1change
team,
that24such
three 5.7779
89.29
0.0112
147.06
maximum
in one
the
crew
the
up 10.0068
teams,
0.0112 that21amount
form
team,
change
to
in 89.29
a147.06
least 5.7779
the5.2969
the
of 42up
such 1into
maximum
crewthree
one
form 0.0068
89.29
0.0112
change147.06
is
that
the5.7779
125.2969
amount
team,
ateams,
0.0068crew 2the
maximum
form
in 147.06
least
ofup 45.7779
the1such
amount
three
change
is 5.2969
89.29
crew
one
to 20.0112
form 0.0068
2in
ateams,
89.29of
that15.7779
team,
maximum
amount
is 5.2969
147.06
crew
three
the
the 0.0112
up
such1change
2isto5.2969
form
amount
teams,
147.06 89.29
0.0068
of a5.7779
that 2such
crew
three
maximum
in
is
the0.0112
147.06
the 0.0068
amount5.2969
teams,2form
change
5.7779that 89.29
of
the 5.7779
such
is
three
in
crew 147.06
0.0112
89.29
0.0068
change
thethat
amount
teams,
5.2969 form5.2969
in 5.7779
the 147.06
the is89.29
crew
change
such form0.0068
5.7779
amount
that 5.2969
in
crew147.06
the 89.29
theisamount5.2969
change
form 5.7
cr
11 to51from
determined
ned 3 151
3. The
determined
1 same
to
from 1 3151
3.determined
The
method
1 to from
same 310.0107
3. The 11is1determined
5from
method
to 5 311 0.0107
applied
same
3. The 13.
1 method
to
issame
to 1 0.0069
31 0.0107
applied
from
determine
The 111applied
5 10.0069
determined
method
issame to 0.0107
393.46
to determine 1 0.0069
3applied
3.method
the
is
The to
change 0.0107
5 1144.93
determined
from
same 111applied
determine
isthe 93.46
to
method
to 0.0069
inchange1 35 6.9914
determined
determine
3.
the The
from
the93.46
0.0107
144.93
0.0107
crane
to 110.0069
issame
change
in 1 93.46
determine
applied
the
to
from
the 144.93
6.9914
6.8161
53 1 0.0069
determined
from
3.
method
crane
The
change
in 1tothe
to
1the 93.46
0.0107
144.93
6.9914
0.0069116.8161
determine
same
to
from
2,crane
is3.
change
in 3 144.93
applied
from
The
method
the 56.9914
11the
1determined
to
from
same
crane
2, 6.8161
93.46
into
to10.0107
193.46
the
is
3. 0.0069
change316.9914
determine
method
to
from
applied
The
crane 6.8161
2,from144.93
same
1in0.0107
is11to
144.93
to
from 1 6.8161
the
2, 93.46
0.0069
16.9914
applied
the
tomethod
determine
crane
3. 3 6.9914
change
to
The 0.0107
2,to 144.93
from
is
same0.0069
6.8161
193.466.9914
determine
applied
in
the the
1method
to
change
crane 144.93
2,tothe0.0107
93.46 6.8161
0.0069
6.8161
determine
is
in
from
change
applied 6.9914
the1crane144.93
toin to93.46
the
2, the0.0069
from 6.9914
6.8161
1 144.93
determine
change
crane toinfrom
2,the
the93.46
6.8161
6.9
1cran
cha
to
1 61 3 161 2 3161 320.0107
116 6 321 0.0107 1 1 0.0070
32 0.0107
16 20.0070 0.0107
393.46
31 0.0070 0.0107
6 2142.86
21 93.46 0.0070
1 36 7.2896
93.46
142.86
0.0107 10.0070
21 93.46
142.86
7.2896
7.1034
63 1 0.0070
93.46
0.0107
142.86
7.2896
0.0070127.1034
3 142.86 67.2896
1 7.1034
93.46
20.01070.0070
93.46 317.2896
7.1034
142.86
0.0107
12 7.1034
142.86 93.46
0.0070
7.2896
3 7.2896
0.0107
142.86
0.0070
7.1034
293.467.2896 142.86
0.0107
93.46 7.1034
0.0070
7.1034 7.2896
142.86 93.46
0.0070
7.2896
7.1034
142.86 93.46
7.1034
7.2
om
he
r crew rebar
1 tothe
from
3,crew
rebar
and1 the
from
to
thecrew
3,rebar
concrete
and
1 from
tocrewthe
3,the and
1crew
concrete
rebar
from
to the3,from
and
crew
1concrete
to
crewthe
13,
the
from
toandfrom
concrete
rebar
2.crew
1This
theto
1 crew
from
to
concrete
3,process
the
crew
2.
and This
from
rebar
1 from to
thegenerated
crew
2.
process
the
1concrete
crew
This
to
1 rebar
from
to
3, from
2.
process
and
generated
36
This
crew
1 theto
1scenarios
to
2.
process
generated
from
rebar
concrete
3,
This
36
and 1scenarios
crew
process
generated
to the
crew
2.
the
3,
36from
concrete
This
and
scenarios
rebar
generated
from 1the
process
36tocrew
1scenarios
crew
concrete
3,
toand2.
36
from
generated
from
This scenarios
thecrew
11process
concrete
toto3,
from
36
2.and This
scenarios
generated
1crew
the
toprocess
2.concrete
from
This 36generated
1process
scenarios
tocrew
2. Thisfrom
generated
36process
scenarios
1 to 2.36 generated
This
scenari
pro
2 71 1 271 1 1271 10.0100
217 7 12 0.0100 1 1 0.0056
1 0.010027 10.0056 0.0100
100.00
111 0.0056 0.0100
7 1178.57
12100.00 0.0056
1 17 100.00
4.6733
178.57
0.0100 20.0056
1 100.00
178.57
4.6733
3.9409
71 2 100.00
0.0056
0.0100
178.57
4.6733
0.0056113.9409
1 178.57 74.6733
2 100.00
3.9409
1100.00
0.01000.0056
114.6733
3.9409
178.57
0.0100
21 100.00
178.57 3.9409
0.0056
4.6733
1 4.6733
0.0100
178.57
0.0056
3.9409
100.00
1 4.6733178.57
100.00
0.0100
0.00563.9409
3.9409 4.6733
178.57100.00
0.0056
4.6733
3.9409
178.57 100.00
3.9409
4.6
based
nurce
the combination
resource
onbased
the resource
on combination
based
the
(Table
resource
oncombination
the
5).
based
(Table
resource
combination
on 5).(Table
the
combination
resource
based
5).
(Table
on combination
5).
(Table
the
based
resource
5).
on (Table
based
the
combination
resource
on
5).
the basedcombination
resource
(Table
on the5).
combination
resource
based
(Table on 5).
combination
the
(Table
resource
5). (Table combination
5). (Table 5).
1 13 2 1 113 2 1 1113 2 10.0102
1213 13 11 0.0102 2 2 0.0062
1 0.0102113 10.0062 0.0102
198.04
12 0.0062 13
0.0102
1161.29
1 98.04 0.0062
2131 3.4625
98.04
161.29
0.0102 10.0062
12 98.04
161.29
3.4625
3.1654
131 1 0.0062
98.04
0.0102
161.29
3.4625
0.0062213.1654
1 161.29 133.4625
1 3.1654
98.04
10.01020.0062
98.04 123.4625
3.1654
161.29
0.0102
11 3.1654
161.29 98.04
0.0062
3.4625
1 3.4625
0.0102
161.29
0.0062
3.1654
198.043.4625 161.29
0.0102
98.04 3.1654
0.0062
3.1654 3.4625
161.29 98.04
0.0062
3.4625
3.1654
161.29 98.04
3.1654
3.4
able1 14 25. Sensitivity
Table
1 114 2 5. Table
2Sensitivity
analysis
1114 2 5. Table
Sensitivity
results
1analysis
214 5.
120.0102 14Table
Sensitivity
based
121analysis
results
5.
2on
0.0102 2Sensitivity
resource
12based
analysis
results
Table
0.0062 114on25.
0.0102 based
combination
analysis
results
resource
Sensitivity
0.006212 onbased
0.0102
198.04 results
resource
Table
combination
0.0062
14
0.0102 21analysis
scenarios.
2161.29 on5.
98.04 based
resource
2Sensitivity
combination
1 results
0.0062
14 on
Table
scenarios.
0.0102
3.7154
98.04
161.29 resource
combination
2based
10.0062 5.
analysis
scenarios.
Sensitivity
98.04 Table
1 combination
161.29
3.7154
3.3955
14 on results
resource
5.
scenarios.
0.0062
1 0.0062
98.04
0.010222Sensitivity
161.29
3.7154 analysis
1 based
3.3955 Table
combination
scenarios.
161.29
143.7154results
on
1 3.3955
98.045.
analysis
Sensitivity
98.04
20.0102 resource
0.0062 based
123.7154 scenarios.
Table
results
3.3955 combination
12on
161.29
161.29
0.0102 analysis
5.
resource
based
Sensitivity
3.3955
98.04
0.0062 1 results
3.7154 on scenarios.
combination
3.7154
0.0102resource
161.29
0.0062 analysis
based
3.3955
298.04 combination
on
3.7154 results
scenarios.
resource
3.3955
161.29
0.0102
98.04
0.0062 based
3.3955 combination
scenarios.
3.7154
161.29 on resource
98.04
0.0062
3.7154scenarios.
3.3955 combinat
161.29 98.04
3.3955
3.7
1 15 2 2 115 2 1 2115 2 1215 15 211 0.0125
210.0125 2 2 0.0075 115 10.0075
21 0.0125 22 0.0075
0.0125
280.00 15
0.0125 1 80.00
1133.33 0.0075
215 0.0125
2 6.2629
80.00
133.33 10.0075
12 80.00
133.33
6.2629
5.6630
15 0.0075
2 1 0.0075
80.00
0.0125
133.33
6.2629
215.6630
2 133.33 156.2629
1 5.6630
80.0080.00
10.01250.0075
226.2629
5.6630133.33
133.33
0.0125
11 5.6630
80.00
0.0075 2 6.2629
6.2629 0.0125
133.33
0.0075
5.6630
180.006.2629 5.6630
133.33
0.0125
80.00 5.6630
0.0075 6.2629
133.33 80.00
0.0075
6.2629
5.6630
133.33 80.00
5.6630
6.2
Cost Productivity
Cost Productivity
Cost Productivity
Cost Productivity
Cost Productivity Cost Productivity Cost Productivity Cost Productivity
Cost ProductivitCos
1 16 2 2 116 2 2 2116 1216 16 Construction
2 Construction
20.0123 21 0.01232 2 Construction
Productivity
0.0074
2 0.012311Productivity
16 Construction
20.0074 2Install
0.0123Productivity
2 Construction
281.30 0.0074
16
0.0123 21Productivity
Time Install
2135.14
81.30 0.0074
16 0.0123
2Construction
2Productivity
Time
Install
6.4674
81.30
0.0123
135.14 2Time
10.0074 Install
81.30
135.14
6.4674
5.8446
16 0.0074
2Productivity
Construction
1 TimeInstall
0.0074
81.30
0.0123
135.14
6.4674 2 Time
225.8446 135.14
166.4674
5.8446
81.3081.30
1Construction
Productivity
Install
20.01230.0074 Time
226.4674
5.8446135.14
Construction
135.14Productivity
0.0123 Install
12 5.8446
81.30
0.0074
6.4674 6.4674
2Construction
Productivity
Time
0.0123
135.14
0.0074Install
5.8446
281.30 6.4674 5.8446
Productivity
Construction
Time Install
135.14
0.0123
81.30
0.0074 Time
5.8446 Productivity
6.4674
135.14 Install
81.30
0.0074 Time
6.4674
5.8446 Insta
135.14 81.30
5.8446
6.4
urce Information
ResourceResourceInformation Resource
Information Resource
Information Information
Resource Information Resource Information
Resource
(US$/Simulation Information
Resource
(US$/Simulation(US$/Simulation
Information
Resource (US$/Simulation
Information
(US$/Simulation
Resource Information
(US$/Simulation (US$/Simulation (US$/Simulation (US$/Simulation (US
1 17 2 3 117 2 1 3117 1217 17(Cycle/Simulation
2 (Cycle/Simulation
310.0131 2 2(Cycle/Simulation
311 0.0131 Time)
0.0079 1117
31 0.0131 (a) 1Time)
0.00793(h/cycle)
(Cycle/Simulation
0.0131
376.34 0.0079
17
0.0131 11 (b)
2(Cycle/Simulation
(a)Time) 1126.58(h/cycle)
(a)Time)
76.34 0.0079
217 0.0131
(Cycle/Simulation
(h/cycle)
3 8.6763(b)
(a)Time)
76.34
0.0131
126.58 10.0079 (h/cycle)
12 76.34 (b)
(a)
126.58
8.6763
7.8726
17 0.0079
3 (Cycle/Simulation
1 Time)
(h/cycle)
(b)
0.0079
76.34
0.0131
126.58
8.6763 3(a)126.58
217.8726 178.6763
1 7.8726
76.3476.34
(Cycle/Simulation
(b) (h/cycle)
Time)
10.01310.0079
328.6763
7.8726126.58
(Cycle/Simulation
(a)
(b)
126.58
0.0131 Time)
(h/cycle)
11 7.8726
76.34
0.0079
8.6763 8.6763
(Cycle/Simulation
3 (a) (b)
Time)
0.0131
126.58
0.0079 (h/cycle)
7.8726
176.34 (a)8.6763 7.8726
(Cycle/Simulation
Time)
(b)
(h/cycle)
126.58
0.0131
76.34
0.0079 (a)8.6763
7.8726 (b)76.34
126.58 (h/cycle)
Time)
0.0079 (a)
8.6763
7.8726(b) 76.34
126.58 (h/cy
7.8726
8.6
ScenarioScenarioScenario Scenario
18 2 Scenario
1 3 Scenario 2 Scenario Time) (c) Time)
0.0131 Scenario 0.0079Scenario76.34 (c)Time) (c) Time) (c)
Time)
126.58 (c) Time)
9.0204 (c) Time)
8.1598 (c) Time) (c) Time) (c)
1 18 2 3 118 2 2 3118 2 320.0131
12 18 321 0.0131 2 0.0079
32 0.0131 118 20.0079 0.0131
376.34
2 0.007918
0.0131
2126.58
1 76.34 0.0079
2183 9.0204
76.34
0.0131
126.58 10.0079
2 76.34126.58
9.0204
8.1598
183 1 0.0079
76.34
0.0131
126.58
9.0204
228.1598
3 126.58 189.0204
1 8.1598
76.34
20.01310.0079
329.0204
8.1598
126.58
0.0131
12 8.1598
76.34
0.0079
9.0204
3 0.0131126.58
0.0079
8.1598
276.349.0204 126.58
0.0131
76.34 8.1598
0.0079 9.0204
126.58 76.34
0.0079
9.0204
8.1598
126.58 76.34
8.1598
9.0
FormRebar FormConc. Rebar
Form Rebar Conc.
Form 19 RebarConc.Form 2 Rebar
Conc. 2 Conc. Rebar 1
Form Conc. 1 Form Rebar 0.0130 FormRebar 0.0067
Conc. Form
Conc.
Rebar Conc. 76.92
Form 149.25
Rebar Conc. Rebar6.2096 Conc. 4.8077
rane2 19 2 1 219
Crane 2 1 1219
Crane 2 10.0130
Crane 22 19Crane
HPCSS 12HPCSS
0.0130 2 CIPSS
0.0067
1 HPCSS
0.0130
Crane 219 1CIPSS 0.0067
0.0130
HPCSS176.92
HPCSS 2 CIPSS0.0067
19
0.0130
HPCSS
Crane1149.25
2HPCSS
CIPSS 76.92 0.0067
219
CIPSS1HPCSS
6.2096
76.92
0.0130
149.25
HPCSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
Crane 20.0067
CIPSS 12HPCSS
76.92
149.25
6.2096
4.8077
19
CIPSS 1 2 HPCSS
HPCSS
CIPSS
Crane 0.0067
76.92
0.0130
149.25
CIPSS
HPCSS6.2096
CIPSS 21CIPSS
HPCSS 4.8077
1 Crane149.25
196.2096
2HPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSS 4.8077
76.92
10.0130
CIPSS
HPCSS 0.0067
126.2096
CIPSS
HPCSS 4.8077
149.25
CIPSS
CIPSS0.0130
HPCSS
Crane21 HPCSS
4.8077
76.92
0.0067
CIPSS6.2096
CIPSS
HPCSS 1 HPCSS
0.0130
149.25
0.0067
CIPSS 4.8077
CIPSS176.92HPCSS
CIPSS
HPCSS 6.2096149.25
0.0130
76.92CIPSS
0.0067
CIPSS
HPCSS
CIPSS 4.8077
6.2096
149.25
HPCSS
CIPSS 76.92
HPCSS 0.0067
CIPSS6.2096
4.8077
HPCSS
CIPSS149.25HPCSS
CIPSS 76.92
4.8077
CIPSS6.2
HPC
CrewCrew CrewCrew Crew
Crew Crew Crew 20
Crew Crew CrewCrew 2 Crew Crew 2 Crew 1
Crew Crew Crew 2 0.0130
Crew CrewCrew Crew 0.0067
CrewCrew Crew 76.92
Crew 149.25
Crew Crew Crew Crew 6.5034 5.0314
2 20 2 1 220 2 2 1220 2 120.0130
2221 20 122 0.0130 2 0.0067
12
2 1 0.0057 0.0130220 2
211 10.0057 0.0067
0.0130
176.92
2 0.0067
20
0.0130
2149.25
2 76.92 0.0067
2 20
1 6.5034
76.92
0.0130
149.25 20.0067
2 76.92
149.25
6.5034
5.0314
201 2 0.0067
76.92
0.0130
149.25
6.5034
2 2 5.0314
1 149.25
206.5034
2 5.0314
76.92
20.01300.0067
1 26.5034
5.0314
149.25
0.0130
2 2 5.0314
76.92
0.0067
6.5034
1 0.0130
149.25
0.0067
5.0314
276.92 6.5034149.25
0.0130
76.92
0.0067 5.0314
6.5034
149.25 76.92
0.0067
6.5034
5.0314
149.25 76.92
5.0314
6.5
1 1 1 11 1 111 10.0097
11 1 11 0.0097 1 0.0097 121 0.0057
0.0097
103.09 0.0097 11103.09
1 1175.44 0.0057 0.0181
1 1 103.09
3.2303
0.0097
175.44 10.0057
1 103.09
175.44
3.2303
2.8323 0.0082
11 1 103.09
0.0057
0.0097
175.44
3.2303
112.8323
1 175.44 13.2303
103.09
2.832355.25
10.00970.0057
113.2303
2.8323121.95
175.44
0.0097
11 103.09
2.8323
0.0057 1 5.7748
3.2303 0.0097
175.44
0.0057
2.8323
103.09
1 3.2303 7.8539
175.44
103.09
0.0097
0.00572.8323 3.2303
175.44103.09
0.0057
3.2303
2.8323
175.44 103.09
2.8323
3.2
2 21 2 2 221 2 1 2221 2 210.0181
2222 21 212 0.0181 2 2 0.0082
21 0.0181
2221 10.0082 0.0181
255.25
22 0.0082 21
0.0181
1121.95
22 55.25 0.0082
2212 5.7748
55.25
0.0181
121.95
0.0184 20.0082
12 55.25
121.95
5.7748
7.8539
212 2 0.0082
55.25
0.0181
121.95
5.7748
0.0083217.8539
2 121.95 215.7748
2 7.8539
55.25
10.01810.0082
54.35 225.7748
7.8539
121.95
0.0181
21 7.8539
120.48 55.25
0.0082
5.7748
2 6.1043
0.0181
121.95
0.0082
7.8539
155.255.7748 121.95
0.0181
55.25 7.8539
0.0082
8.2234 5.7748
121.95 55.25
0.0082
5.7748
7.8539
121.95 55.25
7.8539
5.7
1 21 1 121 2 1121 120.0096
11 2 121 0.0096 1 0.0057
12 0.0096 12 20.0057 0.0096
104.17
1 1 0.0057 0.0096
2 2175.44
1104.17 0.0057
1 12 104.17
3.4046
0.0096
175.44 10.0057
21 104.17
175.44
3.4046
3.0213
21 1 104.17
0.0057
0.0096
175.44
3.4046
123.0213
1 175.44 23.4046
1 104.17
3.0213
20.00960.0057
113.4046
3.0213
175.44
0.0096
12 104.17
3.0213
0.0057
3.4046
1 0.0096175.44
0.0057
3.0213
104.17
2 3.4046175.44
104.17
0.0096
0.00573.0213 3.4046
175.44104.17
0.0057
3.4046
3.0213
175.44 104.17
3.0213
3.4
2 22 2 2 222 2 2 2222 2 20.0184
2223 22 22 0.0184 2 2 0.0083
2 0.0184222 20.0083 0.0184
254.35
32 0.0083 22
0.0184
2120.48
12 54.35 0.0083
2222 6.1043
54.35
0.0184
120.48
0.0198 20.0083
2 54.35120.48
6.1043
8.2234
222 2 0.0083
54.35
0.0184
120.48
6.1043
0.0087228.2234
2 120.48 226.1043
2 8.2234
54.35
20.01840.0083
50.51 226.1043
8.2234
120.48
0.0184
22 8.2234
114.94 54.35
0.0083
6.1043
2 7.9178
0.0184
120.48
0.0083
8.2234
254.356.1043 120.48
0.0184
54.35 8.2234
0.0083
6.9925 6.1043
120.48 54.35
0.0083
6.1043
8.2234
120.48 54.35
8.2234
6.1
1 31 2 131 1 2131 210.0108
11 3 211 0.0108 1 0.0066
21 0.0108 13 10.0066 0.0108
292.59
1 0.00660.0108
3 1151.52
1 92.59 0.0066
1 23 5.3180
92.59
0.0108
151.52 10.0066
1 92.59151.52
5.3180
4.8846
32 1 0.0066
92.59
0.0108
151.52
5.3180
114.8846
2 151.52 35.3180
1 4.8846
92.59
10.01080.0066
215.3180
4.8846
151.52
0.0108
11 4.8846
92.59
0.0066
5.3180
2 0.0108151.52
0.0066
4.8846
192.595.3180 151.52
0.0108
92.59 4.8846
0.0066 5.3180
151.52 92.59
0.0066
5.3180
4.8846
151.52 92.59
4.8846
5.3
2 23 2 3 223 2 1 3223 2 310.0198
2224 23 312 0.0198 2 2 0.0087
31 0.0198
223 10.0087 0.0198
350.51
32 0.0087 23
0.0198
1114.94
2 50.51 0.0087
2233 7.9178
50.51
0.0198
114.94
0.0197 20.0087
12 50.51
114.94
7.9178
6.9925
233 2 0.0087
50.51
0.0198
114.94
7.9178
0.0087216.9925
3 114.94 237.9178
2 6.9925
50.51
10.01980.0087
50.76 327.9178
6.9925
114.94
0.0198
21 6.9925
114.94 50.51
0.0087
7.9178
3 8.1189
0.0198
114.94
0.0087
6.9925
150.517.9178 114.94
0.0198
50.51 6.9925
0.0087
7.1771 7.9178
114.94 50.51
0.0087
7.9178
6.9925
114.94 50.51
6.9925
7.9
1 41 2 141 2 2141 20.0112
1125 4 21 0.0112 31 0.0068
2 0.011211 4 20.0068 0.0112
289.29
11 0.0068
0.0112
4 2147.06
11 89.29 0.0068
1 24 5.7779
89.29
0.0112
147.06
0.0105 10.0068
21 89.29
147.06
5.7779
5.2969
42 1 0.0068
89.29
0.0112
147.06
5.7779
0.0063125.2969
2 147.06 45.7779
1 5.2969
89.29
20.01120.0068
95.24 215.7779
5.2969
147.06
0.0112
12 5.2969
158.73 89.29
0.0068
5.7779
2 3.6477
0.0112
147.06
0.0068
5.2969
289.295.7779 147.06
0.0112
89.29 5.2969
0.0068
3.2936 5.7779
147.06 89.29
0.0068
5.7779
5.2969
147.06 89.29
5.2969
5.7
2 24 2 3 224 2 2 3224 2 320.0197
22 24 322 0.0197 2 0.0087
32 0.0197 224 20.0087 0.0197
350.76
2 0.008724
0.0197
2114.94
2 50.76 0.0087
2243 8.1189
50.76
0.0197
114.94 20.0087
2 50.76114.94
8.1189
7.1771
243 2 0.0087
50.76
0.0197
114.94
8.1189
227.1771
3 114.94 248.1189
2 7.1771
50.76
20.01970.0087
328.1189
7.1771
114.94
0.0197
22 7.1771
50.76
0.0087
8.1189
3 0.0197114.94
0.0087
7.1771
250.768.1189 114.94
0.0197
50.76 7.1771
0.0087 8.1189
114.94 50.76
0.0087
8.1189
7.1771
114.94 50.76
7.1771
8.1
1 51 3 151 1 3151 310.0107
1126 5 311 0.0107 3 1 0.0069
31 0.0107
1 15 10.0069 0.0107
393.46
1 1 0.00690.0107
5 1144.93
21 93.46 0.0069
1 35 6.9914
93.46
0.0107
144.93
0.0104 10.0069
1 93.46144.93
6.9914
6.8161
53 1 0.0069
93.46
0.0107
144.93
6.9914
0.0063116.8161
3 144.93 56.9914
1 6.8161
93.46
10.01070.0069
96.15 316.9914
6.8161
144.93
0.0107
11 6.8161
158.73 93.46
0.0069
6.9914
3 3.8688
0.0107
144.93
0.0069
6.8161
193.466.9914 144.93
0.0107
93.46 6.8161
0.0069
3.4920 6.9914
144.93 93.46
0.0069
6.9914
6.8161
144.93 93.46
6.8161
6.9
1 25 3 1 125 3 1 1125 3 10.0105
13 25 11 0.0105 3 0.0063
1 0.0105 125 10.0063 0.0105
195.24
3 0.006325
0.0105
1158.73
1 95.24 0.0063
3251 3.6477
95.24
0.0105
158.73 10.0063
13 95.24
158.73
3.6477
3.2936
251 1 0.0063
95.24
0.0105
158.73
3.6477
313.2936
1 158.73 253.6477
1 3.2936
95.24
10.01050.0063
133.6477
3.2936
158.73
0.0105
11 3.2936
95.24
0.0063
3.6477
1 0.0105158.73
0.0063
3.2936
195.243.6477 158.73
0.0105
95.24 3.2936
0.0063 3.6477
158.73 95.24
0.0063
3.6477
3.2936
158.73 95.24
3.2936
3.6
1 61 3 161 2 3161 320.0107
1127 6 321 0.0107 3 1 0.0070
32 0.0107
1 6 20.0070 0.0107
393.46
2 1 0.00700.0107
6 2142.86
1 93.46 0.0070
1 36 7.2896
93.46
0.0107
142.86
0.0127 10.0070
21 93.46
142.86
7.2896
7.1034
63 1 0.0070
93.46
0.0107
142.86
7.2896
0.0075127.1034
3 142.86 67.2896
1 7.1034
93.46
20.01070.0070
78.74 317.2896
7.1034
142.86
0.0107
12 7.1034
133.33 93.46
0.0070
7.2896
3 6.4744
0.0107
142.86
0.0070
7.1034
293.467.2896 142.86
0.0107
93.46 7.1034
0.0070
5.7538 7.2896
142.86 93.46
0.0070
7.2896
7.1034
142.86 93.46
7.1034
7.2
1 26 3 1 126 3 2 1126 3 120.0104
13 26 121 0.0104 3 0.0063
12 0.0104 126 20.0063 0.0104
196.15
3 0.006326
0.0104
2158.73
1 96.15 0.0063
3261 3.8688
96.15
0.0104
158.73 10.0063
23 96.15
158.73
3.8688
3.4920
261 1 0.0063
96.15
0.0104
158.73
3.8688
323.4920
1 158.73 263.8688
1 3.4920
96.15
20.01040.0063
133.8688
3.4920
158.73
0.0104
12 3.4920
96.15
0.0063
3.8688
1 0.0104158.73
0.0063
3.4920
296.153.8688 158.73
0.0104
96.15 3.4920
0.0063 3.8688
158.73 96.15
0.0063
3.8688
3.4920
158.73 96.15
3.4920
3.8
2 71 1 271 1 1271 10.0100
2128 7 12 0.0100 31 0.0056
1 0.010012 7 10.0056 0.0100
100.00
121 0.0056 0.0100
7 1178.57
21100.00 0.0056
1 17 100.00
4.6733
0.0100
178.57
0.0128 20.0056
1 100.00
178.57
4.6733
3.9409
71 2 100.00
0.0056
0.0100
178.57
4.6733
0.0076113.9409
1 178.57 74.6733
2 100.00
3.9409
10.01000.0056
78.13 114.6733
3.9409
178.57
0.0100
21 100.00
131.58 3.9409
0.0056
4.6733
1 6.8355
0.0100
178.57
0.0056
3.9409
100.00
1 4.6733178.57
100.00
0.0100
0.00563.9409
6.0794 4.6733
178.57100.00
0.0056
4.6733
3.9409
178.57 100.00
3.9409
4.6
1 27 3 2 127 3 1 2127 3 210.0127
13 27 211 0.0127 3 0.0075
21 0.0127 127 10.0075 0.0127
278.74
3 0.007527
0.0127
1133.33
78.74 0.0075
3272 6.4744
78.74
0.0127
133.33 10.0075
13 78.74
133.33
6.4744
5.7538
272 1 0.0075
78.74
0.0127
133.33
6.4744
315.7538
2 133.33 276.4744
1 5.7538
78.74
10.01270.0075
236.4744
5.7538
133.33
0.0127
11 5.7538
78.74
0.0075
6.4744
2 0.0127133.33
0.0075
5.7538
178.746.4744 133.33
0.0127
78.74 5.7538
0.0075 6.4744
133.33 78.74
0.0075
6.4744
5.7538
133.33 78.74
5.7538
6.4

1 28 3 2 128 3 2 2128 3 20.0128
13 28 21 0.0128 3 0.0076
2 0.0128 128 20.0076 0.0128
278.13
3 0.007628
0.0128
2131.58
1 78.13 0.0076
3282 6.8355
78.13
0.0128
131.58 10.0076
23 78.13
131.58
6.8355
6.0794
282 1 0.0076
78.13
0.0128
131.58
6.8355
326.0794
2 131.58 286.8355
1 6.0794
78.13
20.01280.0076
236.8355
6.0794
131.58
0.0128
12 6.0794
78.13
0.0076
6.8355
2 0.0128131.58
0.0076
6.0794
278.136.8355 131.58
0.0128
78.13 6.0794
0.0076 6.8355
131.58 78.13
0.0076
6.8355
6.0794
131.58 78.13
6.0794
6.8
1 13 2 1 113 2 1 1113 2 10.0102
1234 13 11 0.0102 3 2 0.0062
1 0.01022113 10.0062 0.0102
198.04
22 0.0062 13
0.0102
1161.29
21 98.04 0.0062
2131 3.4625
98.04
0.0102
161.29
0.0199 10.0062
12 98.04
161.29
3.4625
3.1654
131 1 0.0062
98.04
0.0102
161.29
3.4625
0.0087213.1654
1 161.29 133.4625
1 3.1654
98.04
10.01020.0062
50.25 123.4625
3.1654
161.29
0.0102
11 3.1654
114.94 98.04
0.0062
3.4625
1 6.6799
0.0102
161.29
0.0062
3.1654
198.043.4625 161.29
0.0102
98.04 3.1654
0.0062
5.8298 3.4625
161.29 98.04
0.0062
3.4625
3.1654
161.29 98.04
3.1654
3.4

1 14 2 1 114 2 2 1114 2 1235 14 121 0.0102
120.0102 3 2 0.0062 2114 20.0062
12 0.0102 32 0.0062
0.0102
198.04 14
0.0102 1 98.04
2161.29 0.0062
214 0.0223
1 3.7154
98.04
0.0102
161.29 10.0062
2 98.04161.29
3.7154
3.3955
14 0.0094
1 1 0.0062
98.04
0.0102
161.29
3.7154
223.3955
1 161.29 143.7154
1 3.3955
98.0444.84
20.01020.0062
123.7154
3.3955106.38
161.29
0.0102
12 3.3955
98.04
0.0062 1 9.0139
3.7154 0.0102
161.29
0.0062
3.3955
298.043.7154 7.5675
161.29
0.0102
98.04 3.3955
0.0062 3.7154
161.29 98.04
0.0062
3.7154
3.3955
161.29 98.04
3.3955
3.7
2 34 3 2 234 3 2 2234 3 20.0199
23 34 22 0.0199 3 0.0087
2 0.0199 234 20.0087 0.0199
250.25
3 0.008734
0.0199
2114.94
2 50.25 0.0087
3342 6.6799
50.25
0.0199
114.94 20.0087
23 50.25
114.94
6.6799
5.8298
342 2 0.0087
50.25
0.0199
114.94
6.6799
325.8298
2 114.94 346.6799
2 5.8298
50.25
20.01990.0087
236.6799
5.8298
114.94
0.0199
22 5.8298
50.25
0.0087
6.6799
2 0.0199114.94
0.0087
5.8298
250.256.6799 114.94
0.0199
50.25 5.8298
0.0087 6.6799
114.94 50.25
0.0087
6.6799
5.8298
114.94 50.25
5.8298
6.6
1 15 2 2 115 2 1 2115 2 1236 15 211 0.0125
210.0125 3 2 0.0075 2115 10.0075
21 0.0125 32 0.0075
0.0125
280.00 15
0.0125 21 80.00
1133.33 0.0075
215 0.0217
2 6.2629
80.00
0.0125
133.33 10.0075
12 80.00
133.33
6.2629
5.6630
15 0.0093
2 1 0.0075
80.00
0.0125
133.33
6.2629
215.6630
2 133.33 156.2629
1 5.6630
80.0046.08
10.01250.0075
226.2629
5.6630107.53
133.33
0.0125
11 5.6630
80.00
0.0075 2 9.0530
6.2629 0.0125
133.33
0.0075
5.6630
180.006.2629 7.7583
133.33
0.0125
80.00 5.6630
0.0075 6.2629
133.33 80.00
0.0075
6.2629
5.6630
133.33 80.00
5.6630
6.2
2 35 3 3 235 3 1 3235 3 310.0223
23 35 312 0.0223 3 0.0094
31 0.0223 235 10.0094 0.0223
344.84
3 0.009435
0.0223
1106.38
2 44.84 0.0094
3353 9.0139
44.84
0.0223
106.38 20.0094
13 44.84
106.38
9.0139
7.5675
353 2 0.0094
44.84
0.0223
106.38
9.0139
317.5675
3 106.38 359.0139
2 7.5675
44.84
10.02230.0094
339.0139
7.5675
106.38
0.0223
21 7.5675
44.84
0.0094
9.0139
3 0.0223106.38
0.0094
7.5675
144.849.0139 106.38
0.0223
44.84 7.5675
0.0094 9.0139
106.38 44.84
0.0094
9.0139
7.5675
106.38 44.84
7.5675
9.0
1 16 2 2 116 2 2 2116 2 20.0123
12 16 21 0.0123 2 0.0074
2 0.0123 116 20.0074 0.0123
281.30
2 0.007416
0.0123
2135.14
1 81.30 0.0074
2162 6.4674
81.30
0.0123
135.14 10.0074
2 81.30135.14
6.4674
5.8446
162 1 0.0074
81.30
0.0123
135.14
6.4674
225.8446
2 135.14 166.4674
1 5.8446
81.30
20.01230.0074
226.4674
5.8446
135.14
0.0123
12 5.8446
81.30
0.0074
6.4674
2 0.0123135.14
0.0074
5.8446
281.306.4674 135.14
0.0123
81.30 5.8446
0.0074 6.4674
135.14 81.30
0.0074
6.4674
5.8446
135.14 81.30
5.8446
6.4
2 36 3 3 236 3 2 3236 3 320.0217
23 36 322 0.0217 3 0.0093
32 0.0217 236 20.0093 0.0217
346.08
3 0.009336
0.0217
2107.53
2 46.08 0.0093
3363 9.0530
46.08
0.0217
107.53 20.0093
23 46.08
107.53
9.0530
7.7583
363 2 0.0093
46.08
0.0217
107.53
9.0530
327.7583
3 107.53 369.0530
2 7.7583
46.08
20.02170.0093
339.0530
7.7583
107.53
0.0217
22 7.7583
46.08
0.0093
9.0530
3 0.0217107.53
0.0093
7.7583
246.089.0530 107.53
0.0217
46.08 7.7583
0.0093 9.0530
107.53 46.08
0.0093
9.0530
7.7583
107.53 46.08
7.7583
9.0
1 17 2 3 117 2 1 3117 2 310.0131
12 17 311 0.0131 2 0.0079
31 0.0131 117 10.0079 0.0131
376.34
2 0.007917
0.0131
1126.58
1 76.34 0.0079
2173 8.6763
76.34
0.0131
126.58 10.0079
12 76.34
126.58
8.6763
7.8726
173 1 0.0079
76.34
0.0131
126.58
8.6763
217.8726
3 126.58 178.6763
1 7.8726
76.34
10.01310.0079
328.6763
7.8726
126.58
0.0131
11 7.8726
76.34
0.0079
8.6763
3 0.0131126.58
0.0079
7.8726
176.348.6763 126.58
0.0131
76.34 7.8726
0.0079 8.6763
126.58 76.34
0.0079
8.6763
7.8726
126.58 76.34
7.8726
8.6
1 18 2 3 118 2 2 3118 2 320.0131
12 18 321 0.0131 2 0.0079
32 0.0131 118 20.0079 0.0131
376.34
2 0.007918
0.0131
2126.58
1 76.34 0.0079
2183 9.0204
76.34
0.0131
126.58 10.0079
2 76.34126.58
9.0204
8.1598
183 1 0.0079
76.34
0.0131
126.58
9.0204
228.1598
3 126.58 189.0204
1 8.1598
76.34
20.01310.0079
329.0204
8.1598
126.58
0.0131
12 8.1598
76.34
0.0079
9.0204
3 0.0131126.58
0.0079
8.1598
276.349.0204 126.58
0.0131
76.34 8.1598
0.0079 9.0204
126.58 76.34
0.0079
9.0204
8.1598
126.58 76.34
8.1598
9.0
blethe 5Table
lists
results the
5Table
lists
ofresults
the the
5Table
lists
sensitivity
results
of the 5 lists sensitivity
results
of
Table
analysis.
the 5sensitivity
results
oflists
the
analysis.
Asthe sensitivity
of
Table
cantheresults
analysis.
be As5sensitivity
observed
lists
cananalysis.
ofTableAs
be
thecan observed
results
sensitivity
from
analysis.
5 As lists
Table
be the can
observed
of
thefrom
5As
table,
the
beanalysis.
lists
results
can
observed
Table
sensitivity
thethe
from
betable,
ofresults
As
5observed
the
lists
from
can
the
analysis.
sensitivity
table,
the
Table
of
bethe the
from
results
observed
the
table,
5As
sensitivity
lists
the
analysis.
can
of
thetable,
the
from
the
be results
analysis.
sensitivity
observed
As
the
thecan table,
ofbe As
the
from
analysis.
observed
the
can
sensitivity
the
be table,
As
observed
from can
analysis.
the
the
befrom
table,
observed
Asthe the
cantable,
from
be ob t
2 19 2 1 219 2 1 1219 2 10.0130
22 19 12 0.0130 2 0.0067
1 0.0130 219 10.0067 0.0130
176.92
2 0.006719
0.0130
1149.25
2 76.92 0.0067
2191 6.2096
76.92
0.0130
149.25 20.0067
12 76.92
149.25
6.2096
4.8077
191 2 0.0067
76.92
0.0130
149.25
6.2096
214.8077
1 149.25 196.2096
2 4.8077
76.92
10.01300.0067
126.2096
4.8077
149.25
0.0130
21 4.8077
76.92
0.0067
6.2096
1 0.0130149.25
0.0067
4.8077
176.926.2096 149.25
0.0130
76.92 4.8077
0.0067 6.2096
149.25 76.92
0.0067
6.2096
4.8077
149.25 76.92
4.8077
6.2
son
imulation
for
2 20 2results
each
simulation
1 220 scenario
2for
results
simulation
each
2 1220 2for
results
are
scenario
each
categorized
simulation
120.0130for
results
scenario
are
each
22 20 122 0.0130 categorized
forscenario
into
are
each
results
categorized
simulation
2 0.0067thescenario
12 0.0130 are
for
three
into
220 20.0067categorized
eachthe
0.0130following
are
176.92results
simulation
into
scenario
three
categorized
2 0.006720 the
0.0130 for
2149.25following
into
aspects:
2 76.92three
simulation
are
each
results
the
0.0067
220 categorized
following
into
1 6.5034scenario
three
76.92
0.0130
149.25 "construction
aspects:
for
the
20.0067 results
simulation
2 76.92following
each
three
149.25are
aspects:
6.5034
5.0314
20 "construction
into
scenario
for
categorized
1 2 0.0067following
76.92the
0.0130each
149.25 results
6.5034aspects:
"construction
225.0314simulation
three
are
scenario
1 149.25 20 for
aspects:
6.5034categorized
following
into
2 5.0314"construction
76.92 each
20.01300.0067the
are
results
126.5034scenario
"construction
three
categorized
5.0314
149.25 aspects:
0.0130 into
for following
22 5.0314 each
76.92are
the
0.0067
6.5034"construction
categorized
three
into
scenario
1 0.0130149.25 aspects:
the
0.0067 following
5.0314 three
are
276.926.5034 into
"construction
categorized
following
149.25
0.0130aspects:
the
76.92 5.0314
0.0067 three
6.5034"construction
149.25aspects:
into
following
76.92 the
0.0067 "constructio
6.5034three
5.0314 aspects:
follo
149.25 76.92
5.0314
6.5
2 21 2 2 221 2 1 2221 2 210.0181
22 21 212 0.0181 2 0.0082
21 0.0181 221 10.0082 0.0181
255.25
2 0.008221
0.0181
1121.95
2 55.25 0.0082
2212 5.7748
55.25
0.0181
121.95 20.0082
12 55.25
121.95
5.7748
7.8539
212 2 0.0082
55.25
0.0181
121.95
5.7748
217.8539
2 121.95 215.7748
2 7.8539
55.25
10.01810.0082
225.7748
7.8539
121.95
0.0181
21 7.8539
55.25
0.0082
5.7748
2 0.0181121.95
0.0082
7.8539
155.255.7748 121.95
0.0181
55.25 7.8539
0.0082 5.7748
121.95 55.25
0.0082
5.7748
7.8539
121.95 55.25
7.8539
5.7
2 22 2 2 222 2 2 2222 2 20.0184
22 22 22 0.0184 2 0.0083
2 0.0184 222 20.0083 0.0184
254.35
2 0.008322
0.0184
2120.48
2 54.35 0.0083
2222 6.1043
54.35
0.0184
120.48 20.0083
2 54.35120.48
6.1043
8.2234
222 2 0.0083
54.35
0.0184
120.48
6.1043
228.2234
2 120.48 226.1043
2 8.2234
54.35
20.01840.0083
226.1043
8.2234
120.48
0.0184
22 8.2234
54.35
0.0083
6.1043
2 0.0184120.48
0.0083
8.2234
254.356.1043 120.48
0.0184
54.35 8.2234
0.0083 6.1043
120.48 54.35
0.0083
6.1043
8.2234
120.48 54.35
8.2234
6.1
2 23 2 3 223 2 1 3223 2 310.0198
22 23 312 0.0198 2 0.0087
31 0.0198 223 10.0087 0.0198
350.51
2 0.008723
0.0198
1114.94
2 50.51 0.0087
2233 7.9178
50.51
0.0198
114.94 20.0087
12 50.51
114.94
7.9178
6.9925
233 2 0.0087
50.51
0.0198
114.94
7.9178
216.9925
3 114.94 237.9178
2 6.9925
50.51
10.01980.0087
327.9178
6.9925
114.94
0.0198
21 6.9925
50.51
0.0087
7.9178
3 0.0198114.94
0.0087
6.9925
150.517.9178 114.94
0.0198
50.51 6.9925
0.0087 7.9178
114.94 50.51
0.0087
7.9178
6.9925
114.94 50.51
6.9925
7.9
2 24 2 3 224 2 2 3224 2 320.0197
22 24 322 0.0197 2 0.0087
32 0.0197 224 20.0087 0.0197
350.76
2 0.008724
0.0197
2114.94
2 50.76 0.0087
2243 8.1189
50.76
0.0197
114.94 20.0087
2 50.76114.94
8.1189
7.1771
243 2 0.0087
50.76
0.0197
114.94
8.1189
227.1771
3 114.94 248.1189
2 7.1771
50.76
20.01970.0087
328.1189
7.1771
114.94
0.0197
22 7.1771
50.76
0.0087
8.1189
3 0.0197114.94
0.0087
7.1771
250.768.1189 114.94
0.0197
50.76 7.1771
0.0087 8.1189
114.94 50.76
0.0087
8.1189
7.1771
114.94 50.76
7.1771
8.1
1 25 3 1 125 3 1 1125 3 10.0105
13 25 11 0.0105 3 0.0063
1 0.0105 125 10.0063 0.0105
195.24
3 0.006325
0.0105
1158.73
1 95.24 0.0063
3251 3.6477
95.24
0.0105
158.73 10.0063
13 95.24
158.73
3.6477
3.2936
251 1 0.0063
95.24
0.0105
158.73
3.6477
313.2936
1 158.73 253.6477
1 3.2936
95.24
10.01050.0063
133.6477
3.2936
158.73
0.0105
11 3.2936
95.24
0.0063
3.6477
1 0.0105158.73
0.0063
3.2936
195.243.6477 158.73
0.0105
95.24 3.2936
0.0063 3.6477
158.73 95.24
0.0063
3.6477
3.2936
158.73 95.24
3.2936
3.6

Table 5 lists the results of the sensitivity analysis. As can be observed from the table, the simulation
productivity
results for each(column
scenario(a)), installationinto
are categorized timethe (column (b)), and
three following cost productivity
aspects: (column (c)).
construction productivity
(column (a)), installation time (column (b)), and cost productivity (column (c)). We note In
We note that the construction productivity of HPCSS is generally higher than that of CIPSS. other
that the
words, the HPCSS
construction productivity
productivity of HPCSS ranges from 0.0223
is generally higher(cycle/simulation
than that of CIPSS.time, scenario
In other words, 35)thetoHPCSS
0.0096
(cycle/simulation
productivity ranges time,
from scenario 2), and the CIPSS time,
0.0223 (cycle/simulation productivity
scenarioranges from 0.0094
35) to 0.0096 (cycle/simulation
(cycle/simulation time,
time, scenario
scenario 2), and 35)theto CIPSS
0.0057 productivity
(cycle/simulation
ranges time,
fromscenarios 1 and 2). Corresponding
0.0094 (cycle/simulation to column
time, scenario 35) (a)
to
in Table
0.0057 5, Figure 6 showstime,
(cycle/simulation the productivity
scenarios 1 and chart2).for each slab system
Corresponding for each(a)
to column scenario.
in Table As5,shown
Figurein 6
the figure, (i) HPCSS productivity increases with increase in the resource
shows the productivity chart for each slab system for each scenario. As shown in the figure, (i) HPCSS input, and (ii) CIPSS
productivity exhibits
increases a relatively
with increase moderate
in theincrease
resource despite
input,additional resource
and (ii) CIPSS input. Moreover,
productivity exhibitsthe a
installation
relatively time based
moderate increase on despite
the scenario
additional exhibits
resource a similar tendencythe
input. Moreover, relative to construction
installation time based
productivity.
on the scenario exhibits a similar tendency relative to construction productivity.
The cost data of each crew and equipment are examined to analyze the cost per unit time based
the scenarios.
on the scenarios.The Theestimation
estimationofofthe theunit
unitcost
costforfor each
each crew
crew involved
involved thethe following:
following: (i) analyzing
(i) analyzing the
the detailed
detailed construction
construction labor of labor
each of
creweach crew viaofanalysis
via analysis of the records,
the construction construction
and (ii)records, and the
considering (ii)
consideringofthe
acquisition acquisition
daily labor costs offrom
dailyKorea
laborprice
costsinformation
from Korea(KPI) price[21].
information
Based on this(KPI) [21]. Based
method, on
the unit
this method, the unit cost of each crew is calculated as follows: (i) unit cost
cost of each crew is calculated as follows: (i) unit cost of form crew = 3.99 (US$/m hour), (ii) unit cost 2 of form crew = 3.99
(US$/m
of hour),
rebar2crew = 80.86(ii) (US$/ton
unit cost of rebar
hour),crew = 80.86
and (iii) unit(US$/ton hour),crew
cost of concrete and=(iii)
12.15unit cost of3 concrete
(US$/m hour).
crewrental
The = 12.15
cost(US$/m 3
of the tower hour).craneThe
(25 rental
Ton) iscost of the as
calculated tower
68.75crane (25 Ton)
(US$/hour) is calculated
based on KPI (KPI as 2016).
68.75
(US$/hour) based on KPI (KPI 2016). The cost productivity based on each
The cost productivity based on each resource combination is calculated based on the above cost data. resource combination is
calculated
As listed inbased
Table on thehighest
5, the above cost costdata. As listedofinHPCSS
performance Table 5,isthe highesttocost
observed performance
be 5.7748 of HPCSS
(US$/simulation
is observed to be 5.7748 (US$/simulation time) for scenario 21, while
time) for scenario 21, while the cost productivity of CIPSS corresponds to 2.8323 (US$/simulation the cost productivity of CIPSS
time)
corresponds
for scenario 1.to 2.8323 (US$/simulation time) for scenario 1.
0.025
Construction productivity
0.023 0.0223
0.021
0.019
0.017
0.015
0.013
0.011
0.0096 0.0094
0.009
0.007
0.0057
0.005
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
HPCSS CIPSS Scenario number
Figure
Figure 6. Construction productivity
6. Construction productivity for
for each
each scenario.
scenario.
Figure 77shows
Figure showsthethecost
cost productivity
productivity (i.e.,(i.e., column
column (c) values/column
(c) values/column (a) values
(a) values in Table
in Table 5)
5) based
based on the above simulation results. As shown in the figure, scenario 21
on the above simulation results. As shown in the figure, scenario 21 of HPCSS corresponds to the of HPCSS corresponds to
the highest
highest cost cost productivity
productivity (i.e., 319.35
(i.e., 319.35 US$/cycle),
US$/cycle), andhighest
and the the highest
value value
of costofproductivity
cost productivity for
for CIPSS
CIPSS corresponds
corresponds to(US$/cycle)
to 497.75 497.75 (US$/cycle) for scenario
for scenario 1. Overall,1. Overall, the cost productivity
the cost productivity value of
value of HPCSS is
HPCSS is superior to that of CIPSS while HPCSS and CIPSS tend to differ in scenarios
superior to that of CIPSS while HPCSS and CIPSS tend to differ in scenarios 20 to 23. That is, the cost 20 to 23. That
is, the cost productivity
productivity value
value of CIPSS of CIPSS deteriorated
deteriorated under conditions under in conditions
which the inrebar
which the was
crew rebaradded
crew and
was
added and
concrete crewconcrete crew was
was reduced by onereduced
crew setby (i.e.,
one conditions
crew set (i.e.,
fromconditions
scenario 20from scenario21).
to scenario 20 to
In scenario
contrast,
21).cost
the In contrast, the cost
productivity productivity
is optimized for is optimized for HPCSS.
HPCSS.
1300.00
Cost per productivity
1200.00
1100.00
1000.00
900.00
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
497.25
400.00
319.35
300.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Scenario number
HPCSS CIPSS
Figure 7. Cost
Figure 7. Cost productivity
productivity of
of each
each scenario.
scenario.
From the above

above results,
results,wewenote
notethat
thatthe
theproductivities
productivities of of
HPCSS
HPCSS and andCIPSS
CIPSSareare
affected by the
affected by
types of resources. Therefore, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
the types of resources. Therefore, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) method is applied method is applied to
further
to further analyze
analyzethethe
manner
manner ininwhich
whichthe thefour
fourresources
resourcesanalyzed
analyzedinin the the study
study affect
affect the work
productivity of
productivity of HPCSS
HPCSS andand CIPSS.
CIPSS. In In particular,
particular, MANOVA
MANOVA is is useful
useful when
when applied
applied inin conjunction
conjunction
with experimental
with experimental designs, that is, research designs in which a researcher directly controls one or
more independent
more independentvariables
variables to determine
to determine the on
the effect effect on the dependent
the dependent variables [22].variables [22]. Four
Four independent
variables are defined to apply MANOVA (form crew, crane, rebar crew, and conc. crew),and
independent variables are defined to apply MANOVA (form crew, crane, rebar crew, andconc.
two
crew), andvariables
dependent two dependent variables
are defined as HPCSSare and
defined
CIPSSaswork
HPCSS and CIPSS
productivity work
(i.e., productivity
column (a) of Table(i.e.,
5).
column
The MANOVA(a) of Table 5). The
test was MANOVAbytest
implemented wasSPSS
using implemented by using
Ver. 22 software SPSSstudy.
in our Ver. 22 software in our
study.
Table 6 lists the key results of the MANOVA test. From the table, we note that the resources
Tablethe
affecting 6 lists
HPCSSthe work
key results of the MANOVA
productivity are form crew test.(FFrom the Sig.
= 6.775, table,= we
0.003note that
(p < the and
0.01)) resources
rebar
affecting
crew (F = the HPCSS
6.775, Sig. =work
0.003productivity
(p < 0.01)); thearecrane
form and
crewconcrete
(F = 6.775,
crewSig.
are=not
0.003 (p < 0.01))
affected becauseandall
rebar
the
crew (F = 6.775, Sig. = 0.003 (p < 0.01)); the crane and concrete crew are not affected because
significance levels are greater than 0.1. Similarly, the crane (F = 2.606, Sig. = 0.035 (p < 0.05)) is the only all the
significance
factor levelsthe
that affects arework
greater than 0.1. of
productivity Similarly,
CIPSS. the crane (F = 2.606, Sig. = 0.035 (p < 0.05)) is the
only factor that affects the work productivity of CIPSS.
Table 6. Results of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test.
Table 6. Results of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test.
Subject effects Dependent Variable df Mean Square F Sig.
Subject effects
Dependent Variable df Mean Square F Sig.
Form crew 26 0.878 6.775 0.003
Construction Form crew 26 0.878 6.775 0.003
Construction Crane 26 0.295 1.990 0.141
productivity Crane 26 0.295
productivity Rebar crew 26 0.878 6.775 1.990
0.003 0.141
(HPCSS)
Rebar crew
Conc. crew 26 0.878
0.218 0.588 6.775
0.860 0.003
(HPCSS)
Conc. crew
Form crew 26
21 0.218
0.833 1.795 0.588
0.132 0.860
Construction
FormCrane
crew 21 0.833
0.341 2.606 1.795
0.035 0.132
productivity
Construction Rebar crew
Crane 21
21 0.857
0.341 2.000 2.606
0.093 0.035
(CIPSS)
productivity Conc. crew 21 0.206 0.619 0.844
Rebar crew 21 0.857 2.000 0.093
(CIPSS)
Conc. crew 21 0.206 0.619 0.844
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
Previous studies have mostly focused on actively developing various precast concrete slab systems
to solve the problems
Previous studies of reducing
have mostlythe functional
focused manpower,
on actively aging skilled
developing workers,
various precastand improving
concrete slab
systems to solve the problems of reducing the functional manpower, aging skilled workers, and
construction quality. The systems reportedly possess advantages in terms of improving construction
quality, as well as improving workability and shortening construction periods. In general, the results
of these studies indicate that HPCSS displays excellent structural performance and facilitates easy
construction because it does not require supports, when compared with the existing CIPSS. Despite
these advantages, extant studies on HPCSS mostly focus on the structural performance of HPCSS,
and subsequently, there is a paucity of studies examining the construction issues involved in HPCSS.
Thus, the present study involved analyzing detailed construction issues, including the construction
process and work productivity aspects arising from the application of HPCSS. The study focused on
the detailed data of construction cases in which HPCSS and CIPSS are applied simultaneously. For this
purpose, discrete event simulation and multivariate data analysis techniques were used.
The simulation results indicate the following: (i) the work productivity of HPCSS is 1.7 times that
of CIPSS (i.e., 0.0097 (HPCSS)/0.0057 (CIPSS) = 1.701754, Table 5), and (ii) the percentage idle state
of the concrete crew, crane, and rebar crew is high in both systems (Table 5). Our sensitivity analysis,
based on the simulation results, indicates that the work productivity of HPCSS generally increases
with increase in the resource input, and the productivity of CIPSS increases in a relatively moderate
manner (Figure 6). When the installation cost is considered, HPCSS is generally superior to CIPSS
in terms of cost per productivity unit (Figure 7). Further, the MANOVA test results indicate that the
resources that affect the productivity of HPCSS are form crew and rebar crew, while the use of the
crane affects CIPSS productivity (Table 6).
We believe that the results of the study can be used to develop an optimal construction plan
for a construction site in which HPCSS is installed and that HPCSS will find increased application
in future.
Acknowledgments: This study was supported by research funds from Chosun University, 2017.
Author Contributions: Kyuman Cho and Taehoon Kim conceptualized and designed the work; Kyuman Cho
carried out the experiments; Young-su Shin helped in collecting and analyzing the data; Kyuman Cho,
Young-su Shin, and Taehoon Kim visualized the results; Kyuman Cho wrote the paper; and Taehoon Kim
proofread the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Lee, J.; Yoon, J.; Kang, H. Combined half precast concrete slab and post-tensioned slab topping system for
basement parking structures. J. Struct. Integr. Maint. 2016, 1, 19. [CrossRef]
2. Cho, C.; Kappos, A.; Moon, H.; Lim, H. Experiments and failure analysis of SHCC and reinforced concrete
composite slabs. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 56, 320331. [CrossRef]
3. Mansour, F.; Bakar, S.; Ibrahim, I.; Marsono, A.; Marabi, B. Flexural performance of a precast concrete slab
with steel fiber concrete topping. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 75, 112120. [CrossRef]
4. Said, S.; Razak, H.; Othman, I. Flexural behavior of engineered cementitious composite slabs with polyvinyl
alcohol fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 75, 176188. [CrossRef]
5. Chen, J.; Yang, L.; Tai, H. Process reengineering and improvement for building precast production.
Autom. Constr. 2016, 68, 249258. [CrossRef]
6. Ko, C.; Wang, S. GA-Based decision support systems for precast production planning. Autom. Constr. 2010,
19, 907916. [CrossRef]
7. Li, S.; Tserng, H.; Yin, S.; Hsu, C. A production modeling with genetic algorithms for a stationary precast
supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 84068416. [CrossRef]
8. Yin, S.; Terng, H.; Wang, J.; Tsai, S. Developing a precast production management system using RFID
technology. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 677691. [CrossRef]
9. Ahmed, A.; Avetisyan, H. Reducing time and cost of construction projects by improving the properties of
precast normal weight wall panels. Procedia Eng. 2016, 145, 10661073. [CrossRef]
10. Dong, Y.; Jaillon, L.; Chu, P.; Poon, C. Comparing carbon emissions of precast and cast-in-site construction
methodA case study of high-rise private building. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 99, 3953. [CrossRef]
11. Shen, L.; Tam, V.; Li, C. Benefit analysis on replacing in situ concreting with precast slabs for temporary
construction works in pursuing sustainable construction practice. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 145148.
[CrossRef]
12. Li, H.; Lu, M.; Chan, G.; Skitmore, M. Proactive training system for safe and efficient precast installation.
Autom. Constr. 2015, 49, 163174. [CrossRef]
13. Nath, T.; Attarzadeh, M.; Tiong, R.; Chidambaram, C.; Yu, Z. Productivity improvement of precast shop
drawings generation through BIM-Based process re-engineering. Autom. Constr. 2015, 54, 5468. [CrossRef]
14. Pan, N.; Chiu, T.; Chen, K. Full-span precast launching method analysis with dynamic simulationCase
studies of Taiwan high-speed rail project. Autom. Constr. 2008, 17, 592607. [CrossRef]
15. Halpin, D.W.; Riggs, L.S. Planning and Analysis of Construction Operations; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
16. Han, S.; Lee, S.; Hong, T.; Chang, H. Simulation analysis of productivity variation by GPS implementation in
earthmoving operations. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2006, 33, 11051114. [CrossRef]
17. Hong, T.; Hastak, M. Simulation study on construction process of FRP bridge deck panels. Autom. Constr.
2007, 16, 620631. [CrossRef]
18. AbouRizk, S.M.; Halpin, D.W.; Wilson, J.R. Fitting beta distributions based on sample data. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 1994, 120, 288305. [CrossRef]
19. Hong, T.; Cho, K.; Hyun, C.; Han, S. Simulation based Schedule estimation model for ACS-Based core wall
construction of high-rise building. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 393402. [CrossRef]
20. Cho, K.; Hong, T.; Hyun, C. Space zoning concept-based scheduling model for repetitive construction
process. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2013, 19, 409421. [CrossRef]
21. Korea Price Information. Available online: http://www.kpi.or.kr/ (accessed on 2 March 2017).
22. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Pearson Education:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006.
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Effects of Half-Precast Concrete Slab System On Construction Productivity

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Effects of Half-Precast Concrete Slab System On Construction Productivity

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

sustainability

Received: 6 July 2017; Accepted: 17 July 2017; Published: 19 July 2017

Keywords: half-precast concrete slab system; construction productivity; construction simulation

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1268; doi:10.3390/su9071268 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Essentially, in the study, the construction productivity of an HPCSS is analyzed to compare an

2. State of the Art

3. Case Study of Half-Precast Slab System Construction Work

3.1. Case Introduction

Table 1. Details of the case considered in the study.

Items Major Features

3.2. Installation Process of Each Slab System

Preparation Column and Beam installation Wall installation

Form installation Rebar installation Concrete work Form removal

CIP 1 CIP 2 CIP 3 CIP 4 CIP 5 CIP 6 CIP 7 CIP 8 CIP 9

Work CIP : Cast In Place Slab

End HPC : Half-PC Slab

Figure 2. Work process of HPCSS and CIPSS.

4.1. Simulation Modeling

Slab Slab Slab R3

Horizontal Horizontal Rebar

Figure 4. CYCLONE model for HPCSS installation work.

Table 2. Resource and duration data for each work task.

Resource Duration (hours)

Table 3. Simulated and actual durations for each work task.

Durations From Simulation Duration from Case Study

: Tasks for HPCS unit # 2 HPCSS Unit #3 Node 19

: Tasks for HPCS unit # 1 20

7 HPCSS Unit #2 Node

4 HPCSS Unit #1 Node 19

Form Node Node Node

Figure 5. Chronological list of simulation results and actual records.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1268 12 of 15

From the above

Anda mungkin juga menyukai