MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032593626 · doi:10.1109/simul.2010.36

Simulation-Based Scheduling of Modular Construction Using Multi-agent Resource Allocation

2010· article· en· W2032593626 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hosein Taghaddos, Ulrich Hermann, Simaan AbouRizk, Yasser Mohamed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaPCL Construction (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceModular designScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingProcessor schedulingResource allocationResource (disambiguation)Computer networkEngineeringOperating systemOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modular construction is common practice for building industrial plants in the Alberta oil sands region, Canada because of the savings in cost and schedule, and improving safety and quality. Each module represents a unique construction project. Thus, modular construction is considered as multi-project construction. Scheduling and effective allocation of resources (e.g., space, skilled crew, construction equipment) in such large-scale construction projects is a challenging process. The production schedule is expected to satisfy numerous uncertain factors and constraints posed by the site layout, resource limitations, the construction process, and various supply chains (e.g., spool fabrication shop). Traditional network-based scheduling approaches are ineffective in scheduling the multi-project environment of modular construction and optimum allocation of resources. This paper presents a hybrid approach based on discrete event simulation modeling and Multi-Agent Resource Allocation (MARA) for scheduling modular construction. Modules represent agents who bid for resources (e.g., space in the yard) to maximize their individual welfare. An auctioneer is also designed who allocates the available resources to the bidding agents by maximizing the overall welfare of the society of agents. The auctioneer can employ various combinatorial optimization algorithms (greedy and ascending-auction algorithms in this study) to allocate the resources to the agents. Auctions are held regularly until the end of the simulation model to allocate the resources among agents. This paper also presents the successful implementation of this approach in an actual case study of a module assembly yard.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207