1. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 1 Efficient Scheduling of Repetitive Projects Prof. Tarek Hegazy Computer-Aided Construction Project Management, & Infrastructure Asset Management

2. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

3. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 3 Horizontal Horizontal Distributed Vertical Linear & Repetitive Projects

4. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

5. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

6. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

7. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 7 Station 1 Station 2 Station n Linear Scheduling Model

8. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 8 Site Time 11 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 3 - 1 - 11 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 3 - 1 - AB C D Crews: 3 4 3 3 End Date New Representation How to Design the Schedule? 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

9. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 9 C = D x R Crew 2 Crew 1 Crew 3 Crew 2 Crew 1 Unit 5 5 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 Time 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 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

10. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 10 Time 1 4 5 3 6 2 9 8 7 Units 3 Parallel Crews 3 Stagg. Crews Work Continuity Color coded Crews

11. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 11 Station Time 1 4 5 3 6 2 9 8 7 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)

12. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

13. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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:

14. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 14 Different Implementations

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

16. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 16 Data of activities, project constraints, and productivity data 1. Highway Application

17. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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 10 10223111221 21 K 7.8 K 72 K 30 K 14.4 K 31.2 K 19.2 K 11 K 32101.21222 30 K ---- 80 K -------- 38 K 25 K ----2----8--------11------------ 100 K ----------------------------5-------------------- 1980.2---------------- Data of activities’ optional estimates Means Cost Data 1. Highway Application

18. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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 10 10 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

19. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 19 User input of the three estimates 1. Highway Application

20. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

21. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 21 Deadline met After Optimization 1. Highway Application

22. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 22 Different Implementations

23. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

24. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 24 Vertical Constraints: Dependences among activities on Different Floors 1 2 3 4 5 t2t2 B B Floor Time t3t3 t1t1 Shift Time A Shoring Removal Pre-Cast panels Installation Windows Installation 2. High-Rise Application

25. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

26. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 26 Ground Floor Residential Floors- 8 th to 13 th (50% of Standard Floors) Sketch of Hypothetical Building Basement 1 2 11 5 4 3 10 6 7 9 8 13 12 CPM Network for The Case-Study 2. High-Rise Application

27. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 27 Activities Cost and Durations 2. High-Rise Application

28. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

29. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 29 Data Input 2. High-Rise Application

30. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 30 Specifying Constraints 2. High-Rise Application

31. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 31 Initial Schedule Optimization Needed! 2. High-Rise Application

32. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

33. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 33 Results Structural Activities Pre-cast Panels Stud Windows Vertical Constraints Are Met 2. High-Rise Application

34. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 34 Visualization Reports Very Useful for Site Personnel During Project Control 2. High-Rise Application

35. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 35 3. Projects with Multiple Distributed Sites (e.g., Multiple Houses) Different Implementations

36. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

37. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 37 End 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 Time 4 4 5 5 6 6 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

38. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

39. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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:

40. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 40 Real-Life Application - Activitiies, - Logical Relations - Three Estimates. - Activitiies, - Logical Relations - Three Estimates. Slow & Cheap Option Fast & Expensive Option

41. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 41 Data inputs for activity delivery and constraints Real-Life Application

42. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 42 Real-Life Application Initial Schedule Two Outsourced sites Deadline not met Initial Schedule Two Outsourced sites Deadline not met

43. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 43 Real-Life Application Deadline met at Min. cost. Schedule => GIS Deadline met at Min. cost. Schedule => GIS

44. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 44 Visualization Automated Dispatch Maps

45. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 45 Visualization Automated Dispatch Maps

46. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 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

47. © Tarek Hegazy – www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek 47 DEMO EasyPlan DEMO www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/tarek