© Tarek Hegazy – 1 Efficient Scheduling of Repetitive Projects Prof. Tarek Hegazy Computer-Aided Construction Project Management, & Infrastructure Asset Management

© Tarek Hegazy – 2  Linear & Repetitive Projects  Problems with Existing Tools  Proposed Management Models  Implementations  Highway Application  High-Rise Application  Distributed Sites Application  Conclusion  Linear  Linear & Repetitive Projects  Problems  Problems with Existing Tools  Proposed  Proposed Management Models  Implementations Highway Application  High-Rise  High-Rise Application  Distributed  Distributed Sites Application  Conclusion Agenda

© Tarek Hegazy – 3 Horizontal Horizontal Distributed Vertical Linear & Repetitive Projects

© Tarek Hegazy – 4 Linear & Repetitive Projects  Various Types: Horizontal, Vertical, & Distributed  Large Size & Many Resources  Combination of In-House & Outsourcing  Complex to Schedule & Control  Sensitive to Environment  Stringent Deadlines & Budgets  Various  Various Types: Horizontal, Vertical, & Distributed  Large  Large Size & Many Resources  Combination  Combination of In-House & Outsourcing  Complex  Complex to Schedule & Control  Sensitive  Sensitive to Environment  Stringent  Stringent Deadlines & Budgets

© Tarek Hegazy – 5 TimeTime ActivityActivity Task 5 Task 7 Task 6 Task 1 Task 4 Task 3 Task 2 Existing Tools  Not suitable for repetitive projects  No legible view of the large project data  Inadequate planning  No cost Optimization  Not  Not suitable for repetitive projects  No  No legible view of the large project data  Inadequate  Inadequate planning  No  No cost Optimization

© Tarek Hegazy – 6 Objectives  New Scheduling Model:  Better Representation  Work Continuity  Meet Deadlines  Flexible Planning  Cost Optimization  New  New Scheduling Model:  Better  Better Representation  Work  Work Continuity  Meet  Meet Deadlines  Flexible  Flexible Planning  Cost  Cost Optimization

© Tarek Hegazy – 7 Station 1 Station 2 Station n Linear Scheduling Model

© Tarek Hegazy – 8 Site Time AB C D Crews: End Date New Representation How to Design the Schedule?

© Tarek Hegazy – 9 C = D x R Crew 2 Crew 1 Crew 3 Crew 2 Crew 1 Unit Time S u = S u-1 + 1/R i F u = S u + D i S u = S u-1 + 1/R i F u = S u + D i One Activity - 3 Crews Work Continuity

© Tarek Hegazy – 10 Time Units 3 Parallel Crews 3 Stagg. Crews Work Continuity Color coded Crews

© Tarek Hegazy – 11 Station Time A A D D B B C C Low Pr Crew 3 Crew 2 Crew 1 Crew 2 Crew 1 Scheduling Flexibility A: single crew from units 3 to 8 A: single crew from units 3 to 8 C: crew continuity under variable durations C: crew continuity under variable durations B: work interruption at unit 6 B: work interruption at unit 6 D: red and blue crews move from both sides at same time (channel tunnel) D: red and blue crews move from both sides at same time (channel tunnel)

© Tarek Hegazy – 12 Optional Construction Methods Resource Data MaterialMaterial SubsSubs CrewCrew LaborLabor EquipmentEquipment CostOptimizationCostOptimization Method 3 Method 2 Method 1 Activity i From Slow & Cheap to Fast & Expensive

© Tarek Hegazy – 13 Cost Optimization Complex Problem – Genetic Optimization Direct Cost + Indirect Cost + Penalty/Incentive  Objective Function: Duration <= Deadline Individual Resources <= Max. Allowed  Constraints: No. of Crews Work Methods (3 options)  Variables:

© Tarek Hegazy – 14 Different Implementations

© Tarek Hegazy – 15 Example 3 Km highway, each station is 300 m (i.e., 10 stations) 1. Highway Application Right of Way

© Tarek Hegazy – 16 Data of activities, project constraints, and productivity data 1. Highway Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 17 Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Estimate 3 StationMax.Crews($)(d)($)(d)($)(d) 1. Excavation, E. 2. Sub-base, East 3. Base, East 4. Binder, East 5. Asphalt, East 6. Curbs, East 7. Lighting, East 8. Sidewalks, E. 9. Paint, East 1to K 7.8 K 72 K 30 K 14.4 K 31.2 K 19.2 K 11 K K K K 25 K K Data of activities’ optional estimates Means Cost Data 1. Highway Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 18 Station 1. Excavation, East 2. Sub-base, East 3. Base, East 4. Binder, East 5. Asphalt, East 6. Curbs, East 7. Lighting, East 8. Sidewalks, East 1to5 9. Paint 1 to to 17. Same as 1-8 but at West Side 10 to 6 Construction Method TWO set of Crews moving from Both Sides 1. Highway Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 19 User input of the three estimates 1. Highway Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 20 West Sections East Sections Deadline not met Click on any activity to get detailed schedule data Color- coded crews. Options 1. Highway Application Initial schedule

© Tarek Hegazy – 21 Deadline met After Optimization 1. Highway Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 22 Different Implementations

© Tarek Hegazy – 23 Unique Considerations:  Structural–Core Representation  Horizontal and Vertical Constraints  Weather and Learning Curve Effects  Introducing Proper Work Interruptions  Meet Project Deadline  Alternative Construction Methods  Presenting a Clear & Realistic Schedule  Structural–Core Representation  Horizontal and Vertical Constraints  Weather and Learning Curve Effects  Introducing Proper Work Interruptions  Meet Project Deadline  Alternative Construction Methods  Presenting a Clear & Realistic Schedule 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 24 Vertical Constraints: Dependences among activities on Different Floors t2t2 B B Floor Time t3t3 t1t1 Shift Time A Shoring Removal Pre-Cast panels Installation Windows Installation 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 25 Standard Vs Non-Standard floors Time 1 10 Floor 20 Structural Core activities after reduction Structural Core activities before reduction 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 26 Ground Floor Residential Floors- 8 th to 13 th (50% of Standard Floors) Sketch of Hypothetical Building Basement CPM Network for The Case-Study 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 27 Activities Cost and Durations 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 28 Project Constraints  Deadline = 11 months (220 working days)  Total Budget : $17 millions  Indirect Cost: $5,000 per day  Liquidated Damage: $100,000 per day  Incentives: 10,000 per day  3 Construction methods / Activity  Monthly productivity factors  Floor changes at the 8th level  Deadline = 11 months (220 working days)  Total Budget : $17 millions  Indirect Cost: $5,000 per day  Liquidated Damage: $100,000 per day  Incentives: 10,000 per day  3 Construction methods / Activity  Monthly productivity factors  Floor changes at the 8th level 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 29 Data Input 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 30 Specifying Constraints 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 31 Initial Schedule Optimization Needed! 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 32 Schedule Optimization  Resources Vs Deadline  Number of Crews  Construction Methods  Interruption  No. Cycles  Resources Vs Deadline  Number of Crews  Construction Methods  Interruption  No. Cycles 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 33 Results Structural Activities Pre-cast Panels Stud Windows Vertical Constraints Are Met 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 34 Visualization Reports Very Useful for Site Personnel During Project Control 2. High-Rise Application

© Tarek Hegazy – Projects with Multiple Distributed Sites (e.g., Multiple Houses) Different Implementations

© Tarek Hegazy – 36 Infrastructure Management Systems Execution order? Outsourcing? In-house resources? Meet Strict deadline? Normal / Overtime? Execution order? Outsourcing? In-house resources? Meet Strict deadline? Normal / Overtime? Execution Planning List of Priority Assets & Repair Types M&R Planning 3. Distributed Sites

© Tarek Hegazy – 37 End Time Crew 1 Crew 2 Site 5 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Crew 1 Crew 2 Crew 1 Crew 2 Repair Activity Repair Activity for Five Schools Crew 1 Distributed Scheduling Determines: Crews, Work Methods, & Site Order that Meet Deadline with Minimum Cost. Crew Moving – Delivery Methods

© Tarek Hegazy – 38 Delivery Approaches for MR&R Programs Delivery Approaches for MR&R Programs In-House Resources Outsourcing + Out-Tasking Combination of All Combination of All MR&R Delivery Options

© Tarek Hegazy – 39 Activities i Time cost Time cost Time cost 2. Built-In Auto-Estimates: Work assignment options: Normal work, Overtime, or Weekends - Work continuity - Enhanced presentation Optimum values of: - Order of execution - Work assignment option - Activity Crews - Crew non-work periods Planning Cost Optimization - Project status - Progress Updates Optimum corrective actions Actual Progress Re-Optimization o Order of execution o Contractors vs in-house o Automated Estimates o Crew Work Continuity o Deadline Duration o Resource limits o Specific Site Conditions o Crew Movement Time/Cost o GIS-based site distances o Palm TM – based progress 3. Planning & Control: Features 1. Resource Depository:

© Tarek Hegazy – 40 Real-Life Application - Activitiies, - Logical Relations - Three Estimates. - Activitiies, - Logical Relations - Three Estimates. Slow & Cheap Option Fast & Expensive Option

© Tarek Hegazy – 41 Data inputs for activity delivery and constraints Real-Life Application

© Tarek Hegazy – 42 Real-Life Application Initial Schedule Two Outsourced sites Deadline not met Initial Schedule Two Outsourced sites Deadline not met

© Tarek Hegazy – 43 Real-Life Application Deadline met at Min. cost. Schedule => GIS Deadline met at Min. cost. Schedule => GIS

© Tarek Hegazy – 44 Visualization Automated Dispatch Maps

© Tarek Hegazy – 45 Visualization Automated Dispatch Maps

© Tarek Hegazy – 46 Benefits  Cost-Effective delivery  In-house vs outsourcing vs out-tasking  Ties to Asset Management Systems  Realistic execution to meet constraints  Do more for less & reduce backlog  Speedy corrective actions  Cost-Effective delivery  In-house vs outsourcing vs out-tasking  Ties to Asset Management Systems  Realistic execution to meet constraints  Do more for less & reduce backlog  Speedy corrective actions

© Tarek Hegazy – 47 DEMO EasyPlan DEMO