Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference

E. Yücesan, C.-H. Chen, J. L. Snowdon, and J. M. Charnes, eds.

COMPARISON OF SIMULATION-DRIVEN CONSTRUCTION

OPERATIONS VISUALIZATION AND 4D CAD

Vineet R. Kamat
Julio C. Martinez

Construction Engineering and Management Program

200 Patton Hall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT ments (e.g. Working Model), visualization of assembly se-

quences and real-time virtual interactive modeling of con-
Several recent research efforts in visualizing construction struction equipment (e.g. IV++), scenario creation and
are rooted in scheduling. They involve linking activity- animation for interference analysis (e.g. Bentley Dynamic
based construction schedules and 3D CAD models of fa- Animator), construction site model-based information ac-
cilities to describe discretely-evolving construction “prod- cess over the internet using VRML (Campbell 2000) , and
uct” visualizations called 4D CAD. The focus is on com- dynamic 3D visualization of discrete-event operations
municating what component(s) are built where and when. simulations (Kamat and Martinez 2001).
The construction processes or operations actually involved This paper elucidates the differences in concept, form,
in building them are usually implied. Ongoing research at and content between two notions of visualizing construc-
Virginia Tech focuses on designing automated, simulation- tion i.e. 4D CAD and dynamic 3D visualization of dis-
driven methods to visualize, in addition to evolving con- crete-event operations simulations. The article is motivated
struction products, the operations and processes that are by our frequent encounters with persons who often confuse
performed in building them. In addition to what is built our work in enabling visualizations of the latter type with
where and when, the effort is concerned with visualizing 4D CAD. In the following sections, we will thus attempt to
who builds it and how by depicting the interaction between place both these construction visualization research initia-
involved machines, resources, and materials. This paper tives into proper perspective.
expounds the differences in concept, form, and content be-
tween 4D CAD and dynamic 3D visualization of opera- 2 4D CAD VERSUS CONSTRUCTION
tions simulations. An example of a structural steel framing OPERATIONS VISUALIZATION
operation is presented to elucidate the comparison.
Visualization research efforts at the project level are moti-
1 INTRODUCTION vated by the shortcomings of traditional scheduling and
control techniques such as bar charts and CPM in being
Although the planning and control techniques used in able to represent all aspects of construction necessary for
planning construction at the project and operation levels project level planning (Skolnick 1993, Koo and Fischer
are different, both can benefit substantially from dynamic 2000). Visualization is achieved by linking a 3D CAD
3D visualization. Different people in construction thus un- model representing the design of the facility and a con-
derstand different things by the term visualization. As a re- struction schedule (Cleveland 1989). This form of visuali-
sult, the term has been used in the literature to refer to any zation has popularly become known as 4D CAD.
kind of series of sequential computer frames without taking 4D CAD focuses on the visualization of the construc-
into account their origin or their contents (Op den Bosch tion product over the period of its construction. As time
1994). In effect, numerous computer-based visual activities advances, individual components (CAD elements) of the
that can be directly or indirectly used for construction facility are added to the visual model in their final position
planning may be appropriately termed visualization. These and form as dictated by the schedule. 4D CAD models thus
activities include, but are not limited to, the animation of convey what physical components are built where and in
construction schedules (i.e., 4D CAD), design analysis of which time frame. Numerous research studies have ex-
construction equipment in physical simulation environ- plored and exploited such dynamic project level 3D visu-

1765
 Kamat and Martinez

alization since the involved technology is straightforward formation about construction space requirements through
and available. 4D visualizations (Akinci and Fischer 2000, Riley 1998).
In contrast, visualizing construction at the operations The planning information that 4D visualization synthesizes
level is a much more complex proposition that, in addition is however derived from project level planning tools (i.e.
to visualizing the evolving product, involves being able to CPM schedule and CAD model of the infrastructure). It is
view the interaction of the various resources as they build therefore not possible to visualize the actual construction
the product or perform a support service. These resources operations that lead to the construction of the end product
include, but are not limited to, temporary structures, mate- using the sources of 4D CAD (Adjei-Kumi and Retik 1997,
rials, equipment, and labor as they create the product. At Fukai 2000).
this level-of-detail, visualization of the evolving construc- In other words, 4D CAD can depict the evolution of
tion product can be naturally achieved as a byproduct. the construction product but not the interaction of the re-
In order to visualize an operation it is necessary to see, sources that build it. As described above, the latter is the
in addition to the physical components of the facility, the essence of dynamic operations level visualization and can
equipment, personnel, materials and temporary structures only be considered by tools for planning construction at
required to build it. Moreover, it is necessary to depict the that level (e.g. discrete-event process simulation models).
movements, transformations and interactions between Operations visualization therefore differs significantly in
these visualization elements. The movements and trans- concept, content, and usage when compared to 4D CAD. In
formations must be spatially and temporally accurate. In the following sections, we will clarify and further eluci-
order to depict smooth motion, visual elements must be date these differences with the help of an example of a
shown at the right position and orientation several times structural steel frame erection operation.
per second. Issues such as trajectories in 3D space, speed
and acceleration need to be considered. 3 STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTION
Visualizing construction operations also encompasses
construction procedures that do not necessarily involve the Figure 1 presents a typical framing plan for a multistory
assembly of a tangible product such as a building or a steel-framed building. The small rectangular formations in
bridge. For instance, construction operations such as paving, the middle of the building frame are typically provided for
tunneling, quarrying, and earthmoving can obviously be accommodating openings for elevators, stairways, and me-
simulated and visualized at the operations level. However, at chanical shafts. Erection of a multistory steel building frame
the project level, construction of this nature can only be starts with the first tier of framing. Each tier typically spans
planned in terms of the desired production rate and has no two building stories. Erection of the steel components begins
corresponding visualization (i.e. 4D CAD) context due to the with a crane that starts erecting the columns for the first tier.
absence of a tangible product that requires assembly. The columns are usually furnished in sections that are
Construction operations of any duration and complex- slightly taller than two stories to facilitate the splicing of
ity can be visualized dynamically in 3D by linking together column sections for subsequent tiers. The columns are
discrete-event simulation models and CAD models of the picked up from organized piles on the site and lowered care-
infrastructure, construction equipment (i.e. machines), fully over the anchor bolts and onto the foundation.
temporary structures, and other resources (Kamat and Mar-
tinez 2001). The results are smooth, continuous 3D anima-
tions of simulated construction operations that not only de-
scribe what is built where and when, but also convey who
builds what and how they build it. Visualization of con-
struction at the operations level thus allows us to “see”
graphically on the computer, the operations being carried
out in the same way as they would be in the real world.
Such 3D animations of simulated construction operations
facilitate rapid verification and validation of the underlying
discrete-event simulation models. In addition, the practical
and educational benefits of being able to visualize con-
struction at this level of detail are phenomenal.
While being focused on project level planning and
visualization, researchers and industrial proponents of 4D
CAD have always been aware of the importance of opera-
tions level planning in general and operations level visuali-
zation in particular. This is evident from recent 4D CAD Figure 1: Typical Framing Plan for a Multistory Steel
research works that aim to convey operations planning in- Framed Building

1766
 Kamat and Martinez

After the first tier of columns has been erected, the The snapshots depict the state of the completed con-
beams and girders for the first two stories are similarly struction facility at the end of each uniquely identifiable
picked up, lowered, and bolted in place. The two-story tier activity in the construction schedule. Static CAD models of
of framing is then plumbed up using diagonal cables and cranes, temporary equipment, and materials may be in-
turnbuckles. Erection of the subsequent tiers then proceeds cluded in such snapshots to help identify space and layout
much like that of the first. constraints and to increase the visual impact. The interac-
tion of these resources and the processes involved in erect-
4 SCHEDULING STEEL ing the steel shapes themselves are however not depicted in
ERECTION ACTIVITIES such visualizations.

A scheduler may choose to represent the erection of the en- 5 DESIGNING STEEL ERECTION PROCESSES
tire steel frame as a single activity in the planned construc-
tion schedule. Depending on the size of the building (and Designing construction processes involves comparing and
the frame), such an activity could span multiple days. In choosing among alternative construction methods, pieces
addition, erection of the frame may also be planned by di- of equipment, labor levels, and operating strategies for ac-
viding it into zones based on how wide the structure spans complishing the planned activities. The focus is on plan-
horizontally (Sawhney et. al. 1999). A more elaborate ning construction at the field (i.e. production) level.
schedule may also break up the erection operations into Figure 4 presents a Stroboscope (Martinez 1996) proc-
multiple sub-activities such as 1) Erect first tier columns, ess model that simulates the processes involved in erecting
2) Erect first floor girders and beams, 3) Erect second floor the steel frame depicted in Figure 1. A tower crane is used
girders and beams etc. Figure 2 presents such a possible to erect the steel shapes. The schematic model presented in
schedule for erecting the frame shown in Figure 1. For Figure 4 is simple and self-explanatory. The model how-
simplicity, the sub-activities of conveying and installing ever exploits Stroboscope’s notion of characterized re-
bundles of decking and/or installing and maintaining a sources and its programmability to simulate the operation
safety net are omitted. in great detail.
Based on the level of detail incorporated into the Stroboscope characterized resources allow each steel
schedule, a 4D CAD visualization involves depicting the shape to be uniquely identified. This fact is exploited in de-
state of the completed facility at the end of each unique ac- termining the durations of each involved erection task. For
each steel shape (column, beam, or girder), the amount by
tivity (or sub-activity). In the present example, a 4D CAD
which the loaded crane cable must be raised, the amount
visualization would represent the status of the completed
by which the boom must swing, the amount by which the
steel frame at the end of each of the sub-activities, however
tower crane trolley must slide etc. are all functions of the
detailed the level of sub-activities is. For example, the final in-place configuration of the erected steel shape. For
highest level of detail in erecting a steel frame is a single example, the amount by which the crane operator must
steel shape. However, a separate activity for erecting each swing the boom is different when erecting a near column
of them is a ridiculous and unnecessary option from the on tier 1 than the amount of swing necessary for erecting a
scheduling point of view. Figure 3 presents snapshots of a far girder on tier 2. When sampling the durations of each
4D CAD visualization corresponding to the schedule in erection task, Stroboscope accesses and considers the in-
Figure 2. place configuration of the shape that is currently being

Figure 2: Possible Steel Frame Erection Schedule

1767
 Kamat and Martinez

erecting each member of the frame using the same logic

and constraints that are embedded in the underlying simu-
lation model.
The DCV has a language that allows simulation mod-
els to communicate dynamic, time-stamped events and
geometric transformations to an ASCII text animation trace
file. The file can contain references to the CAD models of
the involved resources. Using the information recorded in
the trace files and the pre-existing CAD models, the DCV
recreates a faithful representation of the simulated (and re-
corded) operation. The simulation models are instrumented
to write (to the trace file) the relevant time-stamped anima-
tion instructions on each pertinent simulation action event
Figure 3: Snapshots of 4D CAD Visualization (e.g. ONSTART of activities and/or ONFLOW of links).
Figure 5 presents a short segment of an automatically gen-
processed. The duration of each erection task is thus a erated trace file that when processed will depict the erec-
function of the particular shape that is being erected, as it tion of a near column on tier 2.
would be in a real erection operation. Figure 6 presents a snapshot strip depicting a few
frames that are visualized when the animation trace file
6 3D VISUALIZATION OF STEEL segment presented in Figure 5 is processed. The continuity
ERECTION PROCESSES and the smoothness of the animated processes are not ap-
parent by looking at the snapshot strip. Only the animation
can convey that information.
In addition to simulating the operation and obtaining the
statistical parameters of interest, the simulation model can
generate a dynamic 3D visualization of the steel erection 7 CONCLUSION
processes. This is accomplished using the Dynamic Con-
struction Visualizer (DCV) (Kamat and Martinez 2001). In construction, both project and operations level planning
Using CAD models of the site, the tower crane, and each can benefit substantially from dynamic 3D visualization.
unique steel cross-section (not individual shapes), the DCV Research efforts in project level visualization (4D CAD)
can recreate the entire frame erection operation in a 3D vir- are rooted in scheduling interests and focus on communi-
tual world. Such a visualization depicts the tower crane cating what component(s) are built where and when. Cur-

Figure 4: Simulation Model of Steel Erection Processes

1768
 Kamat and Martinez

TIME 6760.000000; concerned with visualizing who builds it and how by de-
CREATE Shape65 Column; picting the interaction between the various involved ma-
TGTSCALE Shape65 (1,9.00,1) 0; chines, resources, and materials.
PLACE Shape65 AT (-14.00,0.00,8.00); By utilizing an example of a multistory structural steel
TIME 6770.000000; erection operation for comparison, this paper demonstrated
ATTACH Shape65 TheHook (0,-0.5,0); that 4D CAD and simulation-driven dynamic 3D opera-
TIME 6770.000000; tions visualization differ significantly in concept, content,
SCALE TheCable (0,-30.00,0) 15.00; and form. 4D CAD visualizations only depict the discrete
SLIDE TheHook (0,30.00,0) 15.00; evolution of the construction product and are achieved by
TIME 6785.000000; linking together project planning tools (i.e. CPM sched-
TGTROTATE TheBoom HOR 151.93 20.00; ules) and CAD models of static facility components. Dy-
TGTSLIDE TheTrolley (17.00,0,0) 20.00; namic operations visualizations, on the other hand, depict
TIME 6805.000000; not only the continuously evolving facility, but also the in-
TGTSCALE TheCable (1,16.30,1) 15.00; teractions of the various resources (machines, materials,
TGTSLIDE TheHook (0,-16.30,0) 15.00; temporary structures etc.) that are involved in building it.
TIME 6805.000000; Enabling visualizations of the latter type is much more
ROTATE Shape65 HOR 28.07 15.00; complex and is achieved by synthesizing operations plan-
TIME 6830.000000; ning tools (i.e. simulation models) and CAD models of
DETACH Shape65; both static and dynamic entities.
PLACE Shape65 AT (0.00,18.00,0.00);
HORIZORIENT Shape65 0.00; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Figure 5: Segment of Generated Animation Trace File
The work presented here has been supported by the National
rent operations level visualization research efforts at Vir- Science Foundation CAREER and ITR programs. Any opin-
ginia Tech, on the other hand, are rooted in operations ions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations ex-
modeling interests. The work focuses on designing auto- pressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not nec-
mated simulation-driven methods to visualize, in addition essarily reflect the views of the National Science
to evolving construction products, the operations and proc- Foundation.
esses that are performed in building them. In addition to
communicating what is built where and when, the effort is

Figure 6: Snapshots of Steel Erection Processes

1769
 Kamat and Martinez

REFERENCES ICCCBE) sponsored by the Technical Council on

Computer Practices. Reston, VA: American Society
Adjei-Kumi, T., and A. Retik. 1997. Library-based 4D of Civil Engineers.
Visualization of Construction Processes. In Proceed-
ings of the 1997 IEEE Information Visualization Con- AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
ference. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. VINEET R. KAMAT is a PhD Candidate and Research
Akinci, B., and M. Fischer. 2000. An Automated Ap- Assistant in the Via Department of Civil Engineering at
proach for Accounting for Spaces Required by Con- Virginia Tech. He received his M.S. in Civil Engineering
struction Activities. In Proceedings of the Sixth Con- at Virginia Tech in 2000; and a B.E. in Civil Engineering
struction Congress. Reston, VA: American Society at Goa University, India in 1998. He designed and imple-
of Civil Engineers. mented the Dynamic Construction Visualizer with J. Mar-
Campbell, D.A. 2000. Architectural Construction Docu- tinez as part of his graduate research. His research interests
ments on the Web: VRML as a Case Study. Automation include discrete-event simulation and visualization of con-
in Construction. 9. New York, NY: Elsevier Science. struction operations. His email and web addresses are
Cleveland, A. B. Jr. 1989. Real-Time Animation of Con- <[email protected]> and <http://filebox.vt.
struction Activities. In Proceedings of the 1st Con- edu/users/vkamat>.
struction Congress. Reston, VA: American Society of
Civil Engineers. JULIO C. MARTINEZ is an Associate Professor in the
Fukai, D. 2000. Beyond Sphereland: 4D-CAD in Construc- Via Department of Civil Engineering at Virginia Tech. He
tion Communications. In Proceedings of the Sixth received his PhD in Civil Engineering at the University of
Construction Congress. Reston, VA: American Soci- Michigan in 1996; an MSE in Construction Engineering
ety of Civil Engineers. and Management from the University of Michigan in 1993;
Kamat, V. R., and J. C. Martinez. 2001. Enabling Smooth an M.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Ne-
and Scalable Dynamic 3D Visualization of Discrete- braska in 1987; and a Civil Engineer’s degree from Uni-
Event Construction Simulations. In Proceedings of the versidad Catolica Madre y Maestra (Santiago, Dominican
2001 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. B. A. Peters, Republic) in 1986. He designed and implemented the
J. S. Smith, D. J. Medeiros, and M. W. Rohrer, 1528– STROBOSCOPE simulation language with P. Ioannou and
1533. Piscataway, New Jersey: Institute of Electrical is currently V. Kamat’s research advisor. In addition to
and Electronics Engineers. discrete event simulation, his research interests include
Koo, B., and M. Fischer. 2000. Feasibility Study of 4D construction process modeling and decision support sys-
CAD in Commercial Construction. Journal of Con- tems for construction. His email and web addresses are
struction Engineering and Management. Vol. 126, No. <[email protected]> and <http://strobos.ce.
4. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. vt.edu>.
Martinez, J. C. 1996. STROBOSCOPE: State and Resource
Based Simulation of Construction Processes. PhD Dis-
sertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Op den Bosch, A. 1994. Design/Construction Processes
Simulation in Real-time Object-Oriented Environ-
ments. PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, GA.
Riley, D.R. 1998. 4D Space Planning Specification Devel-
opment for Construction Work Spaces. In Proceedings
of the International Congress on Computing in Civil
Engineering. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Sawhney, A., A. Mund, and J. Marble. 1999. Simulation of
the Structural Steel Erection Process. In Proceedings
of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. P. A.
Farrington, H. B. Nembhard, D. T. Sturrock, and G.
W. Evans, 942–947. Piscataway, New Jersey: Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Skolnick, J. F. 1993. A CAD-Based Construction Simula-
tion Tool Kit for Construction Planning. In Proceed-
ings of the Fifth International Conference (V-

1770