- Information
- AI Chat
Constructionsitelayoutplanningmethods
Contaduría pública (5432)
Universiteti POLIS
Preview text
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: researchgate/publication/
Construction Site Layout Planning Methods: an Analytical Review
Conference Paper · November 2021
CITATIONS 0
READS 2,
9 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
BIM-Knowledge for Decision-making in Construction Projects View project
Deconstruction and Recovery Information Modelling (DRIM) View project
Ganiyu Otukogbe Cardiff Metropolitan University 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Lukman Akanbi University of the West of England, Bristol 33 PUBLICATIONS 1,250 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Manuel Davila Delgado University of the West of England, Bristol 50 PUBLICATIONS 1,694 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Hakeem A. Owolabi University of the West of England, Bristol 54 PUBLICATIONS 2,999 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sikiru Ganiyu on 05 December 2022. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
CONSTRUCTION SITE LAYOUT PLANNING METHODS; AN
ANALYTICAL REVIEW
Abstract
Designing an effective construction site layout planning is essential to the successful implementation of construction projects. Construction site layout planning involves the optimal layout of facilities (i., fixed, and temporary facilities). Several techniques are used in addressing the construction site layout planning problems. With the advent of the different techniques used in addressing these problems, three major categories have been identified in this study: knowledge-based models, mathematical models, and hybrid models.
Most of the reviewed peer-reviewed articles in this study focused on static construction site layout planning problems, while a significant number also focused on dynamic site layout planning problems. Nearly all the reviewed articles focused on solving the objective function of the optimal layout of facilities. Furthermore, this study made use of a systematic review to extract essential data from the reviewed articles. Analytical data on the research methods, improvement focus, construction site layout planning problems, methods and objective functions were identified and critically analysed to assist practitioners in the industry and future research.
Keywords: cost, improve focus, optimisation objective functions, productivity, safety, site layout planning techniques.
INTRODUCTION
Construction site layout planning (CSLP) is a crucial part of the construction planning process. Construction sites usually witness the presence of different facilities at different stages of the construction process. These facilities are usually fixed or temporary. The facilities are required on the construction site to perform construction activities (Abunemeh et al., 2017). The location and distribution of these facilities during construction are influenced by the available space's size on site. Also, at different stages of construction, the types, and dimensions of facilities available onsite can vary. For instance, during construction operations on most projects, many temporary facilities are needed. Such facilities will have to be located within the available space on site, with the locations of the facilities having an impact on critical success factors like productivity, safety, and cost throughout the construction process (Wang et al. 2019; Benjaoran and Peansupap, 2020).
Inadequate facilities layout onsite during construction can increase the cost of construction and project completion time because of the additional resources needed to dismantle and relocate facilities on site (Huang and Wong, 2015). This can further affect safety, construction productivity, and space utilisation (Soltani and Fernando, 2004; Dhanure and Pathak, 2016). Therefore, factors like cost, safety and productivity are critical factors for designing an effective construction site layout plan (Ning and Lam, 2013). Hence, to enhance productivity and safety and reduce cost during construction, facilities' optimal layout is critical (Adrian, Utamima and Wang, 2015).
METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a systematic literature review of the extant literature on construction site layout planning techniques and tools in Scopus's electronic databases, Web of Science and Science Direct. The systematic review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2010). A systematic review is a well-established approach in reviewing and synthesising literature and justifying outcomes from the review process. Systematic reviews have been used to investigate different issues in construction site layout planning (Al Hawarneh, Bendak, and Ghanim, 2020; Xu et al., 2020).
The systematic review has widespread popularity in conducting secondary studies in construction. In a recent systematic review article, Xu et al. (2020) argue that systematic review offers a scientific approach in exploring existing studies, identifying knowledge gaps, and making recommendations for future research opportunities. Likewise, Hasan et al. (2018) identify the advantages of the systematic review method in conducting secondary studies. An advantage is that it avoids unnecessary study duplication. Another advantage of using systematic review is that it allows the reproducibility of the research process.
Scopus's electronic databases, Web of Science and Science Direct, were searched for articles published in peer- reviewed journals in English related to construction site layout planning techniques and tools. A structured,
ANALYSIS OF THE REVIEWED ARTICLES
The reviewed articles in this study are categorised into three main categories and subcategories, respectively. These categories are based on the focus areas in which they suggested that the improvements they propose will occur. These focus areas are (1) productivity, (2) cost, and (3) safety. The subcategories are (4) cost and productivity, (5) cost and safety, (6) productivity and safety, and (7) cost, productivity, and safety.
Figure 2 depicts the percentage of areas of improvement focused on in the reviewed articles and the number of articles within each improvement focus area. As shown, 11 articles (24%) have a principal focus on productivity, while 11 articles (24%) have a principal focus on cost, and two articles (4%) have a principal focus on safety. Additionally, four articles (8%), 14 articles (30%), two articles (4%), and three articles (6%) have a simultaneous focus on cost and productivity, cost and safety, productivity and safety, and cost, productivity, and safety, respectively.
Figure 2: improvement focus areas of the reviewed articles
Cost
Cost is a crucial factor in completing a construction project (Atkinson, 1999). Unfortunately, multiple factors influence construction cost, making estimating the final cost of a construction project extremely difficult. For instance, such cost factors include project type, material cost, design and scope changes, onsite conditions, project duration and size, client type, and tendering method (Ahiaga-Dagbui and Smith, 2012). However, it has been suggested that effective construction site layout planning can significantly impact a construction project's cost (Mawdesley et al., 2002).
According to Huang and Wong (2015) and Khalafallah and El-Rayes (2020), recent studies show that efficient layout of construction site reduces material handling costs and minimises the travel times of workers, materials, and equipment onsite, among others. For instance, Hammad, Akbarnezhad, and Rey (2016) suggest that the optimum layout of facilities on construction sites reduces transportation costs. Likewise, the optimal layout of facilities during construction can minimise travel distance between them and reduce transportation flow and costs (Lam, Tang and Lee, 2005; Lam, Ning & Lam, 2009; Ning, Lam & Lam, 2010). Different models have been used in the optimal layout of facilities, and these include knowledge-based, mathematical and hybrid models in construction site layout planning.
In this study, 24% of the reviewed articles focused on using construction site layout planning to reduce cost. However, 30% and 8% of the reviewed articles focused on improving cost along with safety and productivity, respectively. In contrast, 9% of the reviewed articles focused on improving cost and productivity and safety at the same time.
24 24
4
8
30
4 6
IMPROVEMENT FOCUS (%)
Cost Productivity Safety Cost & Productivity Cost & Safety Productivity & Safety Cost, Productivity & Safety
The study by Soltani and Fernando (2004) considered a static construction site layout planning problem even though it recognised the dynamic nature of the construction site and identified that the optimisation analysis tool is limited in its capacity only to be used effectively for small and medium-sized projects. However, the study simultaneously investigates issues around transport cost, safety risks, and visibility on site. This is a rare combination of factors to consider in a single study, and this suggests that many studies can be investigated considering similar factors. Similarly, in the study by El-Rayes & Khalafallah (2005), the construction site layout planning model positively impacted cost but experienced a trade-off in safety. Likewise, this study's various optimisation algorithms can be extended to address multi-objective optimisation problems in construction site layout planning, focusing on the different critical factors to successful site layout planning and simultaneously solving both static and dynamic site layout planning problems.
Furthermore, in their study, Lu et al. (2007) focused on activities and workflows during construction by integrating them with the site layout. However, it did not focus on only site layout planning. The study took a step further to consider what it would look like to integrate the actual workflow onsite into an existing site layout planning while considering a few construction site layout planning variables. This study can provide further research opportunities for onsite layout planning optimisation but can be improved upon by considering a dynamic construction site layout planning problem and not a static one. Similarly, in their study, Ning et al. (2010) explored an area that most studies have not by evaluating different site layout planning using multiple objectives and determining the best use case. However, the study still relied heavily on the use of 2D drawings.
CONCLUSIONS
Future efforts should consider applying construction site layout planning models in simultaneously solving static and dynamic problems onsite using different techniques. This approach will allow researchers to compare the different methods and their impact on construction site layout planning. For instance, such comparative analysis could involve applying knowledge-based models and mathematical models to develop hybrid models to address static and dynamic construction site layout planning problems within the same study. Additionally, the models can be integrated with other emerging technologies like costing and scheduling software, visualisation, and cloud-based technologies to improve critical success factors like addressing pre-planning problems in the design, track cost and safety levels during construction, enhance communication and collaboration among onsite workers and construction teams in construction. Future research should consider onsite factors and constraints like space utilisation, unequal space availability, regular and irregular shaped geometry of facilities, and vertical facility layout in construction site layout planning.
In conclusion, there is a consensus from all the reviewed articles that optimising the layout of facilities throughout the construction process should be used for construction site layout planning. For example, Kumar & Cheng (2015) suggest that construction site layout planning techniques that optimise facilities layout should be favoured above the conventional techniques. These non-conventional techniques complement the conventional methods but are more flexible and efficient in planning dynamic site layouts (Soltani and Fernando, 2004) and help site planners design optimal site layouts (Lam et al., 2009).
Reference:
Abunemeh, M., El Meouche, R., Hijaze, I., Mebarki, A., Shahrour, I. Hazards, vulnerability, and interactions at construction sites: Spatial risk mapping (2017) 22, pp. 63-79.
Adrian, A. M., Utamima A, & Wang, K. J. (2014) A comparative study of GA PSO and ACO for solving construction site layout optimization. KSCE J Civil Eng 19(3):520– 527
Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. and Smith, S., 2014. Rethinking construction cost overruns: cognition, learning and estimation. Journal of financial management of property and construction.
Al Hawarneh, A., Bendak, S. and Ghanim, F., 2020. Construction site layout planning problem: past, present, and future. Expert Systems with Applications, p.
Anumba, C. and Bishop, G., 1997. Importance of safety considerations in site layout and organization. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(2), pp-236.
Atkinson, R., 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International journal of project management, 17(6), pp-
Benjaoran, V. & Peansupap, V. (2020) Grid-based construction site layout planning with particle swarm optimisation and travel path distance. Construction Management and Economics, 38 (8), 673-
Choy, E. and Ruwanpura, J. (2005), “Situation based modeling for construction productivity”, Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 1-10.
Dhanure, Y. and Pathak, S., 2016. Optimization of site layout planning for multiple construction stages with safety consideration and requirements. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technology, 3(5), pp-3176.
Elbeltagi, E. & Hegazy, T. (2001) A hybrid AI-based system for site layout planning in construction. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 16 (2), 79-93.
El-Rayes, K. & Khalafallah, A. (2005) Trade-off between safety and cost in planning construction site layouts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-Asce, 131 (11), 1186-1195.
Ghoddousi, P. and Hosseini, M. (2012), “A survey of the factors affecting the productivity of construction projects in Iran”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 99-116.
Hammad, A., 2020. A multi-objective construction site layout planning problem solved through integration of location and traffic assignment models. Construction Management and Economics, 38(8), pp-772.
Hammad, A.W., Akbarnezhad, A. and Rey, D., 2016. A multi-objective mixed integer nonlinear programming model for construction site layout planning to minimise noise pollution and transport costs. Automation in construction, 61, pp-85.
Hasan, A., Baroudi, B., Elmualim, A. and Rameezdeen, R., 2018. Factors affecting construction productivity: a 30-year systematic review. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Health and Safety Executive Council (2020) Construction statistics in Great Britain, 2020 [online]. Available from: hse.gov/Statistics/industry/construction.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2021].
Huang, C. & Wong, C. K. (2015) Optimisation of site layout planning for multiple construction stages with safety considerations and requirements. Automation in Construction, 53 58-68.
International Labour Organisation (2021) World Statistics: The enormous burden of poor working conditions. Available from: ilo/moscow/areas-of-work/occupational-safety-and- health/WCMS_249278/lang--en/index [Accessed 22 March 2021].
Khalafallah, A. and El-Rayes, K. (2020) Safety and Cost Considerations in Site Layout Planning.
Kumar, S. S. & Cheng, J. C. P. (2015) A BIM-based automated site layout planning framework for congested construction sites. Automation in Construction, 59 24-37.
Lam, K., Ning, X. & Lam, M. C. (2009) Conjoining MMAS to GA to solve construction site layout planning problem. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135 (10), 1049-1057.
Lam, K.-C., Ning, X., Ng, T. (2007) The application of the ant colony optimization algorithm to the construction site layout planning problem 25 (4), pp. 359-374. DOI: 10/
Lam, K., Tang, C. and Lee, W., 2005. Application of the entropy technique and genetic algorithms to construction site layout planning of medium‐size projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23(2), pp-145.
Constructionsitelayoutplanningmethods
Course: Contaduría pública (5432)
University: Universiteti POLIS
- Discover more from:
