automated method for checking crane paths for heavy lifts
TRANSCRIPT
Automated Method for Checking Crane Paths for HeavyLifts in Industrial Projects
Zhen Lei1; Hosein Taghaddos, Ph.D.2; Jacek Olearczyk, Ph.D.3;Mohamed Al-Hussein, Ph.D., M.ASCE4; and Ulrich Hermann5
Abstract: At present, industrial projects are constructed primarily using a prefabricated approach. The modules are produced in an off-sitefacility and transported on transport trailers to the construction site where they are lifted by mobile cranes. One of the keys to the success ofmodular industrial projects is efficient crane planning, which includes path checking to find whether or not a crane has a feasible path throughwhich to lift a module over obstructions in a congested plant. However, due to the large number of lifts, the manual path-checking practice isquite tedious and prone to error. In light of this problem, this paper proposes a methodology for automatically checking the lift paths forindustrial projects. The proposed methodology simplifies and represents the three-dimensional site layout using project elevations. For eachelevation, the crane feasible operation range (CFOR) is calculated based on the crane’s capacity and clearances, as well as site constraints. Thepick area (PA) is calculated by subtracting the ground obstruction areas from the CFOR. The relative positions of the module’s set point, theCFOR, and the PA are checked to determine the feasibility of the lift path on each elevation, as well as the project elevation combination. Thisapproach has been fully automated for path checking of entire sites, and the results are responsive to site changes over time as a projectprogresses. This proposed methodology is generic and thus can be easily applied to check lift paths for entire industrial plants or similarprojects. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000740. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Cranes; Construction industry; Automation.
Author keywords: Automation; Path planning; Mobile crane; Modular construction; Project planning and design.
Introduction
Most industrial projects involve construction using preassembledmodules, which are shipped to the site and erected by mobile crawlercranes. Such heavy lifts are costly and difficult to manage, such thateffective planning is the key to favorable project outcomes. A con-siderable volume of research has been conducted into heavy liftplanning in the last two decades in various areas, including optimalcrane positioning based on capacity and clearances; relocation; andlift path planning (Haas and Lin 1995; Zhang et al. 1999; Al-Husseinet al. 2000, 2001, 2005; Sawhney and Mund 2002; Hasan et al.2010; Olearczyk 2010; Wu et al. 2011; AlBahnassi and Hammad2012; Lin et al. 2012; Zhang and Hammad 2012).
Lift path planning is a subtopic of trajectory and path planningin construction. Previous research regarding trajectory and path
planning have included path planning for on-site multiequipmentlandfill operations (Tserng et al. 2000); a multiobjective path plan-ning framework for workers and vehicles on construction sites(Soltani and Fernando 2004); use of advanced technology to assistwith path planning for construction operations (Teizer et al. 2007;Cheng et al. 2012); and a Google Earth-based system that can opti-mize the haulage routes for off-road dump trucks in construction andmining sites (Choi and Nieto 2011). Crane lift path planning exam-ines the feasibility of the movement of the lifted object from its picklocation to its final location. The current industry practice of liftpath planning relies mainly on intuition and experience, thus lackingefficiency and being prone to error. Meanwhile, the nature of heavyindustrial projects makes crane lift path planning for these projectsparticularly challenging: (1) industrial projects usually involve alarge number of lifts (often over 100 modules per project), andso the process of manually planning these lifts is laborious; (2) heavyindustrial projects are dynamic, and prompt updates of path planningresults are necessary; and (3) industrial project sites are complex,usually with more constraints than other types of projects.
The research to date into lift path planning has focused mainlyon developing algorithms and computer tools to generate detailedlift paths and reduce the human component in the planning process.The robotic motion planning method (Lozano-Pérez 1983) is still apopular approach for developing lift-path-planning algorithms,where cranes are usually treated as multi-degree-of-freedom ro-botic manipulators. One of the earliest research efforts to emergebased on the foundation laid by Lozano-Pérez’s research was asystem for automated path planning for mobile cranes developedby Reddy and Varghese (2002) using the Configuration Space(C-space) method. Sivakumar et al. (2003) subsequently developeda system to automate path planning of two-crane lifts using hillclimbing and A� heuristic search methods. Another method fortwo-crane path planning was developed by Ali et al. (2005) using
1Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2W2 (corresponding author).E-mail: [email protected]
2Construction Engineer, PCL Industrial Management, 5404 99th St.,Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6E 3P4. E-mail: [email protected]
3Construction Engineer, PCL Industrial Management, 5404 99th St.,Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6E 3P4. E-mail: [email protected]
4Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2W2. E-mail: [email protected]
5Manager of Construction Engineering, PCL Industrial Management,5404 99th St., Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6E 3P4. E-mail: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 29, 2012; approvedonMay14, 2013; published online onMay16, 2013.Discussion period openuntil December 26, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineer-ing and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/04013011(9)/$25.00.
© ASCE 04013011-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
a genetic algorithm. Since then, the visualization function has beenincorporated into lift path planning. Kang and Miranda (2006)modeled the crane in a virtual environment in which collision-freeand time-efficient paths for virtual cranes can be searched throughmotion planning algorithms. More recently, Chang et al. (2012)have developed a method to plan the erection path automaticallyfor single and dual cranes, which converts the scene of crane erec-tion into a configuration space, and adopts the Probabilistic RoadMap (PRM) method to search for collision-free paths.
However, most studies in the past have considered individuallift-path-planning scenarios, while overlooking the question ofhow generally to manage lift paths for large-scale industrial proj-ects. Industrial megaprojects require the lift-path-checking systemto be more generic in order to facilitate module path checking of theentire site. Given this, the University of Alberta has been workingclosely with PCL Industrial Management, Canada’s largest generalconstruction contractor, to develop methods and systems to im-prove the efficiency of heavy lift planning for industrial projects,including an algorithm to lift long items using mobile cranes(Hermann et al. 2011); resource scheduling for the lifted modules(Taghaddos et al. 2012); mobile crane positioning on-site (Safouhiet al. 2011); and a detailed algorithm for path checking based onthe module’s set elevation (Lei et al. 2013). This paper presentsthe most recent progress as part of this research initiative, anextension of the work by Lei et al. (2013), which extends thepath-checking algorithm from only checking on one elevation tochecking on multiple project elevations. In this research, fully au-tomated path checking is achieved and implemented in an ongoingindustrial project, which reduces human components involved inthe planning process.
Proposed Methodology
Main Process
For the purpose of timely data communication and sharing, PCLIndustrial Management’s crane management programs are inte-grated and linked to a central database, where the project informa-tion and crane information is stored. PCL Industrial Management’scrane management program made up of three components: Ad-vanced Crane Planning and Optimization (ACPO) (Hermann et al.2010), Advanced Simulation in Industrial Crane Operations(ASICO) (Taghaddos et al. 2012), and the program based on themethodology proposed in this paper. ACPO calculates the possiblecrane locations for each module at its set position, considering thecrane’s boom clearance and lifting capacity, whereas ASICO gen-erates the lifting sequence of the modules based on the lift logicissues (e.g., the top module is the successor of the lower module).Following that, the crane locations and the lifting sequence are re-corded in the database and serve as inputs for the path checking.
As for the path-checking approach, it is assumed that the projectstructure is constructed by modules simplified as box shapes (seeFig. 1 for a typical industrial module and its simplification as arectangular box). In addition, since the project structure comprisesstacked components that can be simplified as rectangular boxes,the three-dimensional (3D) site layout can be described and repre-sented in terms of site elevations, where the project structure isassumed to remain invariant between adjacent elevations (Fig. 2).Based on this, the proposed methodology investigates the feasibil-ity of lift paths at each specific elevation (i.e., path checking). Theinvestigations begin from the highest elevation down to the mod-ule’s set elevation, and each investigation is performed on oneelevation at a time. In addition, if the module does not have a lift
path after all the elevations have been checked individually,the methodology subsequently checks the feasibility of the liftpath through the overlaid elevation combination. The main processof the proposed path-checking approach follows the flowchartshown in Fig. 3. In this process, there are three primary functions:(1) determination of elevations; (2) path checking on individualelevations; and (3) path checking on the overlaid elevation combi-nation. The function “path checking on individual elevations” con-sists of three subalgorithms: (1) elevation determination algorithm;(2) crane feasible operational range (CFOR) algorithm; and (3) pickarea (PA) algorithm. These algorithms will be explained in detail inthe following section, “Designed Algorithms.”
Designed Algorithms
The elevation determination algorithm identifies the elevations thatcan represent the project site layout. Ideally, all of the modules’elevations will be taken into consideration. However, a trade-offneeds to be considered: too many elevations can increase the com-putation workload, and thus result in inefficiency; too few eleva-tions can lead to oversimplification of the site layout. Therefore,an elevation tolerance is provided as a user-defined parameterwhich determines the minimum height difference between twoadjacent elevations. In this paper, the values of all elevations arecalculated satisfying Eq. (1):
ET ≤ jEi − Eiþ1j ði ¼ 0; 1; 2; : : : ; n − 1Þ ð1Þ
where ET = elevation tolerance; Ei = the elevation i; and Eiþ1 = theelevation iþ 1; and there are total n elevations.
A CFOR is calculated for each determined elevation which rep-resents an area where the crane can perform the lift without anycollisions. The CFOR is calculated following three steps:
Fig. 1. Shape simplification of industrial module (image by theauthors)
Fig. 2. Site elevations (image by the authors)
© ASCE 04013011-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
1. The mobile crane’s minimum and maximum radii (referred toin this paper as Rmin and Rmax) are used to define an area wherethe crane can lift the module without exceeding its lifting ca-pacity. Rmin and Rmax are usually calculated according to thecrane’s capacity chart such that they satisfy the boom clear-ance and minimum required rigging height requirements.
2. The Rmin and Rmax are then modified, considering the crane’sboom clearance together with the obstruction and tail-swingequipment constraints. Fig. 4 presents a situation in which theboom conflicts with the obstruction at the Rmax position; theCFOR is then modified accordingly (shown as the gray area inthe Fig. 4). Fig. 5 shows how the existence of tail-swing equip-ment impacts Rmin and Rmax, where an area is erased from Rminand Rmax due to the tail-swing collision with the obstruction.
3. The motion planning method (Lozano-Pérez 1983) is appliedin order to simplify the layout on the selected elevation. How-ever, the rotation of the lifted module along the lift path is not
considered. The PA for the lifted module is calculated satisfy-ing Eq. (2), fulfilling three requirements: (1) the PA shouldoverlap with the CFOR and the site boundary so that the cranecan reach the module; (2) within the PA, the lifted moduleshould not have any conflicts with the surrounding structuresat the ground elevation; and (3) the PA should also overlapwith potential pick areas (PPAs), which are specific areas, suchas roads for delivery trailers, which have been pre-defined formodule pick up. Once the CFOR and PA have been calculated,the feasibility of the lift path is checked employing Eq. (3):
PA ¼ ðCFOR ∩ SB ∩ PPAÞ − SOAi ð2Þ
where PA = pick area; CFOR = crane feasible operationalrange; SB = site boundary; PPA = potential pick area; andSOAi = area of site obstruction i (i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ;m); thereare a total of m site obstructions:
Path checking result ¼�0 ðThere is a pathÞ CFOR ∩ PA ≠ ∅ and SP ∈ CFOR
1 ðNo pathÞ CFOR ∩ PA ¼ ∅ or SP ∈= CFORð3Þ
where SP = module set point (x, y).If the path checking fails at each individual elevation, the algo-
rithm further investigates the possibility of a lift path on the over-laid elevation combination. To obtain the overlaid elevationcombination: (1) the CFOR and PA are calculated for eachdetermined elevation; and (2) the calculated CFORs and PAsare overlaid and their unions are obtained [Eqs. (4) and (5)], begin-ning from the highest project elevation and descending to themodule’s set elevation. The obtained unions are the overlaid cranefeasible operational range (OCFOR) and overlaid pick area(OPA). The OCFOR allows for lift path shuttling among different
elevations, while the OPA presents the module PAs for differ-ent elevations. Similar to the path-checking requirements for asingle elevation [Eq. (3)], the feasibility of the lift path for the over-laid elevation combination can be checked using Eq. (6):
OCFOR ¼[ni¼0
CFORi ð4Þ
OPA ¼[ni¼0
PAi ð5Þ
Path checking result ¼�0 ðThere is a pathÞ OCFOR ∩ OPA ≠ ∅ and SP ∈ OCFOR
1 ðNo pathÞ OCFOR ∩ OPA ¼ ∅ or SP ∈= OCFORð6Þ
where OPA = overlaid pick area; OCFOR = overlaid crane feasibleoperational range; CFORi = crane feasible operation range onelevation i (total n elevations); PAi = pick area on elevation i (totaln elevations); and SP = module set point (x, y).
Case Study and Validation
General Information
The proposed methodology is implemented as a program in VisualStudio 2010 to achieve automatic path checking of the entiresite. The “Case Study and Validation” section is based on the re-sults generated by the built program and consists of two parts:
(1) Case 1 presents a path-checking example for one elevation thatserves to demonstrate calculation of the CFOR and PA, based uponwhich path checking is performed on individual elevations; (2) Case2 focuses on how the overlaid elevation combination is formed andon its application in checking the lift path, together with the finalresults of path checking for the project and the application of thecurrent system.
The case study is based on an ongoing industrial project by PCLIndustrial Management, located in Alberta, Canada, which involveslifting 200 modules and heavy vessels. The employed heavy mobilecrane for this project is the Demag CC 2800, equipped with a 660-tcapacity and a superlift tail-swing. The possible crane locations foreach module are calculated by the ACPO program, and the liftingsequence is generated by the ASICO program (see the “Proposed
© ASCE 04013011-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
Methodology” for the introduction of ACPO and ASICO). ACPOdivides the site layout using grids, based upon which each gridpoint is tested for the boom clearances, rigging height, andtail-swing constraints for module lifting. The grid points thatsatisfy the engineering requirements are selected as potential crane
locations. For this project, ACPO has generated a total of 89,252possible crane locations for all the modules, and each module hasmultiple potential crane locations. ASICO, based on the results ofACPO, performs schedule planning, primarily considering the liftlogic issues. The logic issues are defined based on the precedentialrelationships among modules, which further generate a completelift sequence. Fig. 6 presents all the calculated crane locationsfor the module and the site layout. The inside and outside boun-daries define the inaccessible areas for crane settlement and the siteboundary, respectively. The objective of employing the proposedmethodology in this project is to automatically check the lift pathfor every crane location, and filter out the locations without feasiblelift paths.
The project elevations are determined based on the modules’installation elevations and the elevation tolerance. The elevationtolerance is given as a user-defined parameter that defines the mini-mum height difference between two adjacent elevations. Sincethere is no industry standard for elevation tolerance, this valueis determined by engineers based on their experience; in this project1.5 m (5 ft) is used as the elevation tolerance. Based on the calcu-lations of project elevations made using Eq. (1), a total of 11 projectelevations are generated.
Case 1 (Single-Elevation Path Checking)
In Case 1, the module PR-075, with a gross weight of 30.53 t(67,305 lb), is selected for path-checking analysis. The ACPO
Fig. 3. Flowchart for path checking
Fig. 5. Tail-swing equipment constraint
Fig. 4. Boom conflict with obstruction at Rmax
© ASCE 04013011-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
has generated 354 potential crane locations for this module (Fig. 7shows the module at its set position with all the selected cranelocations), among which one location is selected for the path check-ing. The module’s set elevation is used to demonstrate the calcu-lation of the CFOR and PA. Fig. 8 presents the calculated Rmin andRmax at the selected crane location, based on which the CFOR in
Fig. 9 is calculated. At Area A, a sector is removed from Rmin andRmax due to the superlift tail-swing constraint, and at Area B theRmax is modified due to the installed modules. The generated CFORrepresents the area where the crane can perform the lift without anycollision at the module’s set elevation. Fig. 10 presents the PAs(outlined in blue), which represent the areas where the cranecan pick the module. Since the CFOR overlaps with the PAsand the lifted module set position falls within the CFOR, the
Fig. 6. Case study site layout
Fig. 7. Module set position and crane locations
Fig. 8. Rmin and Rmax
Fig. 9. CFOR for Case 1
Fig. 10. PA for Case 1
© ASCE 04013011-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
path-checking program determines using Eq. (3) that there is a liftpath for the target module.
To validate the results, a 3D lift study has been conducted. Thetotal module weight is calculated, including the module grossweight, load block weight, rigging weight, and other additionalweight. The calculated total module weight at the set position is78.48 t (approximately 173,019 lb). By checking the capacity chartprovided by the crane manufacturer, the maximum radii at the pickpoint and the set point for this weight are 54 ft (177.2 m) and 85.3 ft(26 m), respectively, and the corresponding chart capacities are100.92 t (approximately 222,490.55 lb) and 259 t (approximately571,997.36 lb). The crane is proven to have enough capacity at itspick location and set location. At the pick location, the crane con-sumes 77.8% of its full capacity, while at the set location, only30.3% of its full capacity is used. In addition, the boom clearancecheck is performed to guarantee sufficient clearance for the lift path
Fig. 11. Boom clearance checking at module pick and set location
Fig. 13. CFORs on different elevations
Fig. 12. Case 2 scenario
© ASCE 04013011-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
(Fig. 11). At the pick location, the crane has a boom clearance of64 ft 5 in (19.6 m), while at the set location the clearance is 10 ft 9in (3.3 m). The lift study also checks the lifting surroundings toensure that the lift path is valid.
Case 2 (Overlaid Elevation Combination)
In Case 2, another module, PR-011A, with a gross weight of111.92 t (approximately 246,741.41 lb), is selected to demonstratehow the overlaid elevation combination is used for path checking(Fig. 12 presents the module set position and selected crane loca-tion). For different project elevations, the crane’s operation rangevaries due to the boom clearance, rigging height, and capacity re-quirements. The CFORs and PAs are calculated for each projectelevation (shown in Figs. 13 and 14 with different colors). Accord-ing to the results, the CFORs on higher elevations represent more
constrained operation ranges due to the boom clearance and riggingheight requirements, but meanwhile they involve fewer obstruc-tions than at the lower elevations; similarly, the crane encountersmore feasible operation ranges at lower elevations, but moreobstructions. By overlaying the CFORs and PAs from differentelevations (Fig. 15), the OCFOR and OPA are obtained, whichrepresent the feasibility of lifting and picking the module from dif-ferent elevations. The obtained OCFOR and OPA are used for pathchecking using Eq. (4), such that a feasible lift path is found to existfor the selected crane location. The corresponding lift study by pro-fessional engineers for this module shows that the crane consumes67 and 64% of its full capacity at its pick position and set position,respectively. The study also gives a boom clearance of 10 ft 5 in.(3.2 m) and 11 ft (3.35 m) at the pick position and set position,respectively. Automatic path checking is performed for the entiresite using the built program. Selected for the modules are 155 crane
Fig. 14. PAs on different elevations
Fig. 15. OCFOR and OPA
© ASCE 04013011-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
positions, and the results show that there are 122 crane locations(78.71%) that have lift paths and 33 crane locations (21.29%) thatdo not have lift paths, considering fixed crane locations (Fig. 16).For the failed crane locations, the writers are currently developingalternative solutions, such as crane walking with load.
Conclusions and Future Research
This paper proposes a generic methodology for mobile crane liftpath checking in large-scale industrial construction. The proposedmethodology considers the general constraints that appear on in-dustrial projects and can be used to perform path checking for sim-ilar projects. A computer program has been developed based on theproposed approach that achieves automatic lift-planning calcula-tions. The developed program is linked to the company’s centraldatabase and communicates dynamically with other developedprograms.
The path-checking process begins with determining elevationsfor the representation of the industrial plant. The determination ofelevations is based on the modules’ respective elevations coupledwith an elevation tolerance to establish an appropriate balance be-tween computation workload and oversimplification. Based on thedefined elevations, the feasibilities of lift paths have been investi-gated for each elevation. This investigation has consisted of thethree steps described earlier in greater detail: (1) the CFOR, an areawhere the mobile crane can perform the lift without any conflict, iscalculated based on the crane’s capacity, boom clearance, tail-swing constraint, and site obstruction constraints; (2) the module’sPA is calculated by subtracting the obstruction areas on the groundelevation from the CFOR; and (3) the CFOR is checked for overlapwith the PA as well as to determine whether or not it contains themodule’s set point (if so, the module has a lift path; otherwise, otherelevations need to be checked or alternative solutions need to beprovided). A case study based on an industrial project has beenpresented to demonstrate the capabilities and flexibilities of the pro-posed approach, in which the path-checking approach was appliedto investigate the feasibilities of lift paths for preselected crane lo-cations. However, it should be noted that the functionality of theproposed approach is not limited to this case, as it can be employed
to assist in solving other heavy lift-planning problems. This ap-proach benefits practitioners by automatically providing accuratepath-checking results, which can be updated promptly to respondto changes to the given project. However, the limitations of the cur-rent work are (1) it is assumed that only one mobile crane performsthe lifting, without any simultaneous crane operation; simultaneouscrane operation on a given lift is a possible additional constraint forpath planning that is not incorporated into the current algorithm;(2) the project elevations assist in simplifying the site layout,but meanwhile ignore the possible obstructions between elevations;(3) the number of elevations is determined by the elevation toler-ance, which needs to be further tested in different projects to obtaina standard value; and (4) alternatives for crane locations without liftpaths need to be added. In subsequent research, the writers wish toutilize path checking to identify the logic constraints of a given liftsequence. In addition, the writers expect to develop a model thatcan automatically generate detailed crane operation animationsfor the entire project for the purpose of visualization and collisiondetection.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of theNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada(NSERC), under the Industrial Research Chair (IRC) and Colla-borative Research and Development (CRD) grant programs. Thewriters also greatly appreciate the support provided by PCL Indus-trial Management. Those who have participated in this researchproject are also gratefully acknowledged.
References
AlBahnassi, H., and Hammad, A. (2012). “Near real-time motion planningand simulation of cranes in construction: Framework and systemarchitecture.” J. Comput. Civil Eng., 26(1), 54–63.
Al-Hussein, M., Alkass, S., and Moselhi, O. (2000). “D-CRANE: Databasesystem for utilization of cranes.” Can. J. Civil Eng., 27(6), 1130–1138.
Fig. 16. Entire site path-checking results
© ASCE 04013011-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
Al-Hussein, M., Alkass, S., and Moselhi, O. (2001). “An algorithm formobile crane selection and location on construction sites.” Constr.Innovation, 1(2), 92–105.
Al-Hussein, M., Alkass, S., and Moselhi, O. (2005). “Optimization algo-rithm for selection and on-site location of mobile cranes.” J. Constr.Eng. Manage., 131(5), 579–590.
Ali, M. S. A., Babu, N. R., and Varghese, K. (2005). “Collision free pathplanning of cooperative crane manipulators using Genetic Algorithm.”J. Comput. Civil Eng., 19(2), 182–193.
Chang, Y., Hung, W., and Kang, S. (2012). “A fast path planning methodfor single and dual crane erections.” Autom. Constr., 22, 468–480.
Cheng, T., Mantripragada, U., Teizer, J., and Vela, P. A. (2012). “Auto-mated trajectory and path planning analysis based on ultra widebanddata.” J. Comput. Civil Eng., 26(2), 151–160.
Choi, Y., and Nieto, A. (2011). “Optimal haulage routing of off-road dumptrucks in construction and mining sites using Google Earth and a modi-fied least-cost path algorithm.” Autom. Constr., 20(7), 982–997.
Haas, C. T., and Lin, K. (1995). “An interactive database system withgraphical linkage for computer aided critical lift planning.” Proc.,12th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics inConstruction, ISARC, Warsaw, Poland, 313–324.
Hasan, S., Al-Hussein, M., Hermann, U., and Safouhi, H. (2010). “Inter-active and dynamic integrated module for mobile cranes supportingsystem design.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(2), 179–186.
Hermann, U., Hasan, S., Al-Hussein, M., and Bouferguène, A. (2011).“Innovative system for off-the-ground rotation of long objects usingmobile cranes.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 137(7), 478–485.
Hermann, U., Hendi, A., Olearczyk, J., and Al-Hussein, M. (2010). “Anintegrated system to select, position, and simulate mobile cranes forcomplex industrial projects.” Proc., Construction Research Congress2010, ASCE, Banff, AB, Canada, 267–276.
Kang, S., and Miranda, E. (2006). “Planning and visualization for auto-mated robotic crane erection processes in construction.” Autom.Constr., 15(4), 398–414.
Lei, Z., Taghaddos, H., Hermann, U., and Al-Hussein, M. (2013). “Ameth-odology for mobile crane lift path checking in heavy industrialprojects.” Autom. Construct., 31, 41–53.
Lin, Y., Wu, D., Wang, X., Wang, X., and Gao, S. (2012). “Statics-basedsimulation approach for two-crane lift.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,138(10), 1139–1149.
Lozano-Pérez, T. (1983). “Spatial planning: A configuration spaceapproach.” IEEE Trans. Comput., C-32(2), 108–119.
Olearczyk, J. (2010). “Crane lifting operation planning and lifted objectspatial trajectory analysis.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environ-mental Engineering, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Reddy, H. R., and Varghese, K. (2002). “Automated path planning formobile crane lifts.” Comput.-Aided Civil Infrastructure Eng., 17(6),439–448.
Safouhi, H., Mouattamid, M., Hermann, U., and Hendi, A. (2011). “Analgorithm for the calculation of feasible mobile crane position areas.”Autom. Constr., 20(4), 360–367.
Sawhney, A., and Mund, A. (2002). “Adaptive probabilistic neuralnetwork-based crane type selection system.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,128(3), 265–273.
Sivakumar, P. L., Varghese, K., and Babu, N. R. (2003). “Automated pathplanning of cooperative crane lifts using heuristic search.” J. Comput.Civil Eng., 17(3), 197–207.
Soltani, A. R., and Fernando, T. (2004). “A fuzzy based multi-objective path planning of construction sites.” Autom. Constr., 13(6),717–734.
Taghaddos, H., AbouRizk, S., Mohamed, Y., and Hermann, U. (2012).“Simulation-based auction protocol for resource scheduling problems.”J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 138(1), 31–42.
Teizer, J., Caldas, C., and Haas, C. (2007). “Real-time three-dimensionaloccupancy grid modeling for the detection and tracking of constructionresources.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 133(11), 880–888.
Tserng, H. P., Ran, B., and Russell, J. S. (2000). “Interactive path planningfor multi-equipment landfill operations.” Autom. Constr., 10(1),155–168.
Visual Studio 2010. [Computer software]. ⟨http://www.microsoft.com⟩.Wu, D., Lin, Y., Wang, X., Wang, X., and Gao, S. (2011). “Algorithm
of crane selection for heavy lifts.” J. Comput. Civil Eng., 25(1),57–65.
Zhang, C., and Hammad, A. (2012). “Improving lifting motion planningand re-planning of cranes with consideration for safety and efficiency.”Adv. Eng. Informatics, 26(2), 396–410.
Zhang, P., Harris, F. C., Olomolaiye, P. O., and Holt, G. D. (1999).“Location optimization for a group of tower cranes.” J. Constr. Eng.Manag., 125(2), 115–122.
© ASCE 04013011-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
CO
NC
OR
DIA
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
11/
26/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.