Integrated three-dimensional computer-aided design and discrete-event simulation models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional computer-aided design (3D-CAD) systems that integrate critical path method (CPM) algorithms, commonly referred to as four-dimensional computer-aided design (4D-CAD), have received a high level of interest over the past few years due to the insight they offer into constructability and feasibility analysis. This paper outlines an approach that facilitates this modeling method through integration between a commercial 3D-CAD software package and a discrete-event simulation tool. This approach employs a product-based modeling method that integrates simulation models with CAD drawings to provide real-time analysis and improved model accuracy in modeling construction operations. By integrating with 3D-CAD drawings, the models require much less data entry and provide a much higher degree of accuracy. Additionally, during the course of a project, resource and time consumption data can be collected and used to continually update the model, minimizing the use of assumptions and generalized data. This paper provides a short background and literature review to contextualize the problem statement, describes the product atomic component (PAC) used to integrate 3D-CAD and the simulation model, outlines some of the implementation issues in a simulation context, and presents a prototype system with an example application for an earthmoving project.Key words: 4D-CAD, CPM, product atomic component, simulation modeling, integration, earthmoving.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".