Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Automated tower crane planning: leveraging 4-dimensional BIM and rule- T

based checking
⁎
Yuanshen Ji , Fernanda Leite
Construction Engineering and Project Management Program, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 301 E.
Dean Keeton St. C1752, Austin, TX 78712-1094, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reviewing tower crane plans in the pre-construction phase is an iterative process and one that is in need of an
Planning approach that improves its effectiveness and efficiency. This study proposes a framework that integrates 4D
Rule checking modeling and rule-based checking for reviewing tower crane plans. A template of crane-specific rules that are
Building information model (BIM) based on prevailing tower crane design standards in the United States was developed. This framework is capable
Simulation
of automating the review process and identifying potential spatial and capacity conflicts based on design models
Crane safety
and construction schedules. This work presents a prototype system to which crane-specific rules are applied in a
rule-checking platform that uses a 4D model as input. In the validation tests, the system's effectiveness is de-
monstrated by its high recall rates. Efficiency is achieved through diminishing manual interventions. The pro-
posed approach also gives rise to an automated tower crane-planning process, reducing the need for manual
input. Higher efficiency allows users to review more alternatives consistently when compared with the manual
approach.

1. Introduction overlooking critical conditions (i.e., hypothetical scenarios in pre-

The last decade has seen a broader adoption of tower cranes on
building construction projects in North America as well as around the
world. The presence of tower cranes is especially prevalent in high-rise
building construction and in projects with high levels of prefabrication,
which rely heavily on machinery equipment for material handling ac-
tivities [1,2]. The benefits of tower cranes over mobile cranes include
higher productivity rates [3] with reduced safety-related risks [4–6]
and decreased daily operations management demands [7,8].
To leverage such benefits, project engineers need to invest time in
the preconstruction phase by planning the placement of the possible
tower cranes in their specific jobsites [1]. This extra planning effort is
needed because of the complex interactions between the design and the
other parts of site layout—interactions that have cost, safety, and pro-
ductivity implications [9–14]. Moreover, extra planning is needed be-
cause of the timing of the design, which occurs long before execution
[15]. Planners need to synthesize project data and generate hypothe-
tical scenarios in which engineers can review proposed design alter-
natives. The hypothetical scenarios reflect designers' personal under-
standing of site-specific conditions (e.g., spatial, time-space, or
availability constraints) based on their engineering experience. There-
fore, an enhanced design process should aim to eliminate the risk of
construction planning) that might make certain tower crane plan al-
ternatives unfeasible; such a process could also facilitate the disclosing
of constraints that are unique to each project.
The effectiveness of advanced tower crane planning systems is af-
fected by various factors. Tangible factors include the geometric re-
lationship between the crane and site [12,16] along with permissible
equipment specifications [9,17]. Intangible factors include the number
of repetitive and manual tasks that, in actual projects, implementing
these systems can give rise to. Users can be quickly overwhelmed by
excessive manual iterations, directly impacting the performance of
advanced design systems.
The solution space for tower crane planning problem is multi-di-
mensional. Each solution belongs to a three-dimensional space, which
features critical conditions, site-specific constraints, and design alter-
natives, as shown in Fig. 1. Each cell in the solution space cube has a
value with respect to each dimension. Those getting the “passing” va-
lues from all attributes of critical conditions and site-specific constraints
are feasible solutions. The feasible solutions are difficult to identify
because each dimension of the tower crane solution space has multiple
attributes. For example, critical conditions may include but are not
limited to critical lift, erection, dismantle, height alteration, and
maintenance. Finding the cells with a “passing” value from each

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yuanshen@utexas.edu (Y. Ji), fernanda.leite@utexas.edu (F. Leite).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.003
Received 21 December 2017; Received in revised form 19 April 2018; Accepted 5 May 2018
0926-5805/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Ji, F. Leite
Fig. 1. Example solution space of tower crane design in building construction projects.
attribute of every dimension is an iterative, time-consuming, and often
manual process. Manual iterations can be reduced, if not eliminated, by
an approach for enhanced tower crane planning.
The ultimate aim of this research study is to improve the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of tower crane planning. We propose an en-
hanced design system for tower crane planning to eliminate repetitive
tasks and manual information input. The proposed framework defines
effectiveness as a system that permits engineers to expand the search
space (see Fig. 1) within a limited time frame and explore more options
for an optimum solution; efficiency refers to reducing the number of
repetitive tasks. To improve a building information model (BIM)-based
planning system, we leverage 4D modeling and rule-based checking.
The following section summarizes the milestone research studies in the
field that have utilized 4D and rule-based design to enhanced project
outcomes, including improved productivity for construction planning
and management. The remainder of this paper introduces the proposed
approach, provides a demonstration of our prototype implemented on
an actual construction project, and presents a discussion of the results,
including listing limitations for further exploration.
2. Background research
A considerable amount of effort has been invested in developing
design systems to support crane planning. These systems [18–23] en-
able users to understand the alternative's impacts on project success.
Many advanced systems, however, are typically devised for reviewing
selected challenging scenarios for higher accuracy and automation ra-
ther than for tackling the large amount of general, iterative checking
requirements. To bridge the gap between the status-quo and a broad
adoption in actual projects, designers must come up with a system that
improves usability, reduces manual data input and iterations, and au-
tomates the repetitive activities along the process. Nevertheless, pio-
neering studies have identified key characteristics that have the po-
tential to reduce manual as well as iterative activities. The major
findings in this regard are summarized in this section. Indeed, these
research studies serve as points of departure for this study.
2.1. Simulation and 3D visualization for lift planning
Simulations cannot replace human intervention when it comes to
space or time-space conflicts [24,25]. In the late 1990s, Stanford Uni-
versity researchers at the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
(CIFE) introduced to the architecture, engineering, and construction
(AEC) community the concept of 4D simulation, originally termed “4D-
79
Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90
CAD” [26]. This approach integrates 3D models and project schedules
to generate a 4D simulation. A 4D simulation, compared to synthesizing
a process hypothetically, is a much more intuitive, efficient, and ef-
fective way to understand the construction process. This concept was
quickly embraced by the AEC industry and many applications have
since been developed and implemented.
Al-Hussein et al. [9] conducted a study that explored an approach to
complement simulation with visualization. It reduces difficulties
stemming from lack of proficiency in generating detailed simulations, a
skill that engineers are not typically trained for. They claimed that the
integration of a 3D model and lifting event simulations is helpful in
validating lifting plans. However, users of this system have to rely on
visuals to identify the conflicts associated with each simulated event.
The system cannot proactively capture spatial conflicts or capacity
limitations that invalidate the simulated event. Several research studies
[16,21] experimented with model-based simulation for lift planning.
Shorter operation time can be achieved. However, these proposed ap-
proaches may generate plans without identifying spatial conflicts that
commonly exist during implementation. Furthermore, these approaches
are not capable of assisting in pre-construction planning. The amount of
effort required to generate one single simulation in these studies is
costly for implementation in pre-construction planning, which typically
requires validating hundreds of events and scenarios.
2.2. Kinetic motion of cranes
The reach and range of motion of crane components are dynami-
cally affected by the load applied on the hook. Tower crane planning
needs to iteratively check these factors for validation. Tantisevi and
Akinci [15] developed a system to automatically generate sequential
movements of mobile cranes to support the detection of spatial conflicts
and a boom's range of motion. The system can restrict the allowed range
of motion dynamically according to payload under the hook. However,
this system still requires a significant amount of manual data input to
develop the initial crane model. More importantly, the framework does
not support validating the clearance that is critical for crane safety.
Kang and Miranda [27] explored lift path planning using the kinetic
motion of cranes as constraints. The outcome of the path-planning al-
gorithm can avoid physical collisions for individual lift activities.
Hence, this approach is especially useful in crane collaboration plan-
ning and critical lift planning. It is challenging to apply this approach in
pre-construction planning, which has a large solution space and does
not only plan for a single event.
Y. Ji, F. Leite
Fig. 2. IDEF0 diagram for the proposed framework.
2.3. Automatic validation using quantitative metrics and rules
Researchers have made significant progress in optimization algo-
rithms for tower crane design. When a design target is quantitatively
described, these algorithms are now capable of not only analyzing
specific design alternatives, but also suggesting the optimal solution to
the problem [14,16,28–30]. However, the research community is pre-
vented from using solely optimization to solve design problems due to
two major barriers—the lack of definition of optimal design and the
computational complexity introduced by design constraints. The defi-
nition of an optimal crane plan is not universal since the set of con-
straints governing the validity of design alternatives is mostly unique
for each project [31]. Without a preliminary review to narrow down the
solution space, mathematic formulation of the constraints is too com-
plex to implement or the running time is prohibitively long. In response
to these two barriers, several research teams [31–33] have experi-
mented on integrating a rule-based system and BIM to effectively re-
duce the solution space for design review problems. Zhang et al. [33]
implemented rule-based checking on 4D simulation models of building
projects aiming to identify the potential falling hazards based on de-
sign, schedule, and construction methods. The outcome was inspiring
because it showcased that rule-based checking is automatic and each
iteration of review requires a minimal amount of time and steps for
either preparation or execution. Additionally, it demonstrated that rule-
checking could capture complex conflicts in design. For example, when
more than one object occupies a spot in a model, minimum space be-
tween objects is not provided, and neither are time-space conflicts.
These are common types of constraints to tower crane design problems,
and they are repetitively examined in each iteration as well. Un-
fortunately, no formalized approach to developing pre-programmed
rules specifically for tower crane planning is available. Neither did
Zhang et al. [33] explore the steps to customizing rules for transitioning
between design alternatives or projects. Rule-based design review is
worth further investigation to assist engineers as they try to effectively
and efficiently shrink the solution space in the tower crane design
problem.
2.4. Need for a rule-based 4D tower crane planning system
Current 4D simulation systems for tower crane planning primarily
use scenario-based simulation and specialize in reviewing standalone
80
Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90
events. However, pre-construction planning requires validation on
hundreds of events because the problem is multi-dimensional (see
Fig. 1). To practically validate such a large solution space, manual input
and repetitive tasks should be reduced, especially when it comes to
transitioning between alternatives. This research study explores an
approach that aims to integrate rule-based design review and 4D si-
mulation for consistent and automated tower crane plan review. A
semi-automated model update tool will be used to revise the 4D model
based on alternative plans. Permitted crane configuration and load
charts are embedded in the tool and automatically checked; this re-
petitive task is automatically conducted by the framework. Rule sets are
pre-programmed to automate the validation of all alternatives.
Rule-based 4D design review for tower crane planning offers the
following contributions: a method to develop a system that can be
adapted to multiple types of projects, an approach to generate plan
rules that are extensible and can be adapted to site-specific conditions,
and a method to guide 4D model scope and level of development (LOD)
definitions.
3. Proposed framework and method
The goal of this research is to develop a framework to assist tower
crane design to achieve higher effectiveness and efficiency in pre-
construction planning. This goal may be achieved through auto-
matically validating design alternatives based on site-specific con-
straints, reducing manual data input in iterative design, and increasing
the number of alternatives to be validated within restricted time frame.
Fig. 2 illustrates an IDEF0 diagram providing an overview of our pro-
posed framework, as well as improvements related to this study.
This framework consumes project data as input to establish a si-
mulation 4D model. The model integrates building model, project
schedule, and a specialized Tower Crane (TC) model. The building
model may include both to-be-built structures and relevant existing
structures, depending on site-specific constraints. For example, certain
design alternatives require crane booms to swing over public roads or
buildings next to the jobsite, or to maneuver in close proximity to utility
lines. In these cases, the building model should, for validation purposes,
include all relevant elements (e.g., existing buildings, utility lines,
public road). Projects vary, however, in their requirements for the
building model for crane planning. Indeed, each project has a unique
set of site-specific constraints [31].
Y. Ji, F. Leite
Developing a 4D model can be time-consuming and can even out-
weigh the benefits of automated validation, without a guideline on
model scope, and LOD. However, BIM has been increasingly used in the
building construction industry and, hence, we envision that existing
models can be leveraged for crane planning, which were originally
created for other construction management purposes (e.g. design co-
ordination). It is important that the site-specific rules must be generated
before determining the scope and LOD of a 4D model. Detailed plan
review process will be used to demonstrate how this framework le-
verages site-specific rules to determine the appropriate model specifi-
cations, in the application and validation section.
The controls incorporate crane specification, site-specific rules, and
construction methods. Crane specifications (e.g., jib length, mast
height, rated capacity) are permitted by equipment manufacturers or
competent personnel when modifications occur. The data in Microsoft
Excel format is project-independent and can be accessed, updated, or
expanded at any time in the iterative design review. Site-specific rules
are a group of constraints that engineers assemble to represent the
definition of valid designs for a particular project. The content of rules
reflects one version of the description of validity, which includes but is
not limited to sufficient coverage and capacity provided at certain
spots, clear of obstructions in operations, and safety protocols and so
on. Since site-specific rules state only valid and not optimum solutions,
more than one alternative could pass a review of these rules. Further
review on valid alternatives would be conducted mostly by leveraging
mathematical optimization [14,30,34]—a rather self-contained topic
that is beyond the scope of this paper. Another piece of information
initially determined before each review iteration are construction
methods. Different methods could affect the minimum capacity needed
from tower cranes on various locations at a jobsite. Additionally, con-
struction methods may change the clearance-related constraints, be-
cause a fleet of machinery equipment will demand different site lay-
outs. Even though controls are deterministic within each iteration,
when a broader solution space is being explored, engineers can change
construction methods or modify rule parameters between iterations.
To develop the proposed framework, the researcher conducted case
studies on six building construction projects. These projects consist of
mid-rise to high-rise constructions in the range of five to thirty-five
stories. The total area is between 219,000 and 1.15 million ft.2, with the
construction cost from $52 million to $334 million in US dollars. The
number of tower cranes implemented on these projects is from one to
four. The structural components are mostly concrete with a few steel
elements. The six case studies were used for the development of the
knowledge representation, which is described in [35]. For validation
purposes, we selected one of the six projects, given that it used multiple
cranes on a congested job site, as well as for the fact that we had full
access to the project models and data. In the validation, 295 automated
reviews were conducted (59 rules applied to five alternative plans) and
126 clashes were analyzed to evaluate the performance of proposed
framework.
The outcome of the proposed framework is the 4D simulation for
both valid and invalid design alternatives, along with an analysis report
for each alternative. Violated rules are reported accompanied by asso-
ciated visual illustrations. This research focuses on the approach to
reduce repetitive activities and manual data input and to validate more
alternatives before refining their details for optimization. In future
work, we will explore further automated approaches to suggest optimal
solutions based on quantitative metrics.
3.1. Parametric rules to accommodate site-specific conditions
Rule-based design review is typically seen as part of a piece of
software that analyzes candidate designs based on the layout, config-
uration, relations and attributes of objects in the model under in-
vestigation without modifying the design itself or the model [36]. In-
stead of suggesting the appropriate alternatives with full automation,
81
Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90
rule-based design systems inform users which items from pre-defined
rules are satisfied (or not) by each design alternative. In final decision
making, rule-based systems cannot replace human intervention. In fact,
these systems are devised to organize complex pre-defined rules and to
automatically check, in a consistent manner, multiple design candidates
against these rules.
Rule-based systems can potentially lead to more efficient and ef-
fective tower crane planning. First, pre-defined rules are a formalized
documentation of the knowledge and implicit reasoning behind deci-
sion making. The status quo depends on an individual's collective
working experience to be transformed into cognition in each project. It
is easy to overlook constraints that might have a prohibitive impact on
a project, given the complexity of interaction between tower cranes and
many other elements on site. Furthermore, the rule sets represent the
formalized principle for planning. The logic in rule sets can be adapted
to suit new projects. Rule sets can also serve as the intermediary of
information exchange among engineers for discussion and training
purposes. Last but not least, rule-based checking systems can automate
the validation processes that are repetitively conducted. Project en-
gineers are allowed to concentrate on aspects that machines can hardly
handle, such as identifying different construction methods to shift the
solution space towards a better outcome.
The rule-based design review method we have developed was in-
spired by previous studies that applied rule checking in various appli-
cations [33,36–39]. Despite some variations in previous studies, the
core steps are as follows: 1) knowledge extraction and rule preparation;
2) model preparation to include necessary information for rule assess-
ment; 3) assessment of the model based on predefined rules; and 4)
reporting and documenting the assessment results. This process de-
scribes one iteration of rule checking and, to make informed decisions,
it may require multiple iterations to compare different design options.
The first two steps provide insight into developing a rule-checking
system. Therefore, this approach is followed in this research study.
Fig. 3 provides an overview of the procedures for knowledge extraction
and rule preparation. A prerequisite for model preparation is having
formalized rules. The model scope and LOD depend on formalized rules
as guidance. This study began by extracting domain knowledge and
then generating the parametric rules. The rules contain domain-specific
knowledge and are extensible to accommodate site-specific constraints.
As sources of domain knowledge, the researchers used published
standards applicable to tower crane planning, namely ASME B30.3-
2016 Edition “Tower Cranes” and Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) electronic code of federal regulations (e-CFR)
Title 29, Part 1926, Subpart CC – “Cranes & Derricks in Construction.”
In the United States, these standards are the baseline for informing
tower crane planning strategies.
To retrieve the domain knowledge, researchers used semantic-based
information extraction (IE), as regulatory standards are written in
natural language. This approach can be broadly used on other sources
of the TC domain knowledge. After all, text form is the most common
way of documenting guides or best practices related to tower crane
usage. A critical piece of semantic-based information extraction is
feature selection. This aids in reducing the discrepancy between the
outcome and the original text and to make sure that the extracted
knowledge is domain specific [40]. The features proposed in this study
are the following: condition, object(s), attribute(s), threshold, and op-
erator. The intermediate format to document the extracted knowledge
is a table of parameterized rules. Zhang et al. (2013) pointed out that
parametric rules organized in a tabular manner is common in the
construction research community and can facilitate transforming ex-
periential knowledge to a “computer-processable” form. Table 1 de-
monstrates an example of domain-specific knowledge retrieved from
one paragraph of standards using the selected features. When im-
plemented in real-world cases, the object names are subject to change
to represent site-specific data. The threshold value might also be revised
if competent personnel recognize the necessity to accommodate certain
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Fig. 3. Summary of steps to extract knowledge and prepare rules.

site-specific conditions.
To manage and maintain the site-specific rules, this study used
Solibri Model Checker v9.7 (SMC). SMC, which was also used to im-
plement the automated rule-based review, is a 3D model analysis
software that applies the aforementioned rule-based approach. A 3D
model can be imported to the software in Industry Foundation Classes
(IFC) file format, which many 3D native modeling software systems
support as an export format. In this case, the research team used the IFC
model generated by Autodesk Revit as input to SMC.
3.2. 4D model for rule-based tower crane design review
4D models are created by linking the objects from the 3D model for
tower crane design with the construction phases specific to tower crane
operations. Fig. 4 illustrates in detail the three-step approach to 4D
modeling for tower crane design. The usefulness of 4D simulation relies
on the content in both the 3D model and phasing information, which
should align with the purpose of 4D modeling [41–43]. Therefore, the
content of the 3D model and the phasing in this approach is specific to
assisting tower crane design. Step one is preparing the 3D model for
tower crane design, which includes the building model and the tower
crane model. As it contains crane-related objects, the building model is
different from those used for Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
clash detection. These objects include but are not limited to occupied
properties in proximity to the jobsite (e.g., buildings, infrastructure),
utility lines near the envelope of the crane, and machinery equipment
that demand specific elevated spaces. Site-specific rules provide a
guideline on what objects are modeled. Consequently, as suggested in
Fig. 2, site-specific rules and design alternatives should be assembled
before modeling starts. Design alternatives govern the parameters for
the tower crane model, such as mast height, jib length, and locations for
each piece of equipment and each phase (when needed).
The second step is transitioning the as-planned schedule, as well as
construction methods, to crane-specific phases, such as assembling,
operating, weather waning, height altering, and disassembling. This
approach uses an as-planned schedule as input since this framework is
designed for pre-construction crane design review. However, this ap-
proach can be used for short-term site management by utilizing an
actual schedule, instead of an as-planned one. Crane-specific phases
vary based on project characteristics. For example, low-rise building
construction typically need not see crane jumps (i.e., increasing the
height of a tower crane during construction, typically seen in high-rise
construction projects). Moreover, the phases created based on a sche-
dule must be consistent with the “condition” attribute of site-specific
rules.
The last step is finalizing 4D modeling by assigning condition in-
formation to each of the objects in the 3D model. Different design al-
ternatives may require different phases assigned to certain objects. For
example, if the number of tower cranes changes, or the location of a
tower crane changes, a different group of objects will be affected by a
crane assembly process. Hence, when transitioning between design al-
ternatives, crane-specific phases may be updated for certain objects.
The following section reports on the performance of the proposed
framework in a real-world project through prototype deployment. Also
introduced in the section are quantitative metrics used for validation.
4. Application and validation of the framework
The framework was applied to a real-world construction project for
demonstration and validation purposes. The project was a multi-
disciplinary 9-floor complex used for engineering education and re-
search activities on the main campus of a higher education institute.
The complex contains over 430,000 ft.2 of floor space in two buildings
and an auditorium (attached to the south end of the project). Total

Table 1
Example of domain knowledge extracted from design standard.
Standard index Extracted knowledge

Condition Object A Attribute of A Object B Attribute of B Operator Threshold

ASME B30.0-2016 3-3.4.3 (1) Operation PowerLine_50kV Location CraneMast Location ≥ 10 ft. (3 m)
CraneJib Location ≥ 10 ft. (3 m)
CraneCounterJib Location ≥ 10 ft. (3 m)
CraneCable Location ≥ 10 ft. (3 m)
CraneHook Location ≥ 10 ft. (3 m)
Load Location ≥ 10 ft. (3 m)

Note: the content of the selected paragraph is: “For lines rated 50 kV or below, minimum clearance between the lines and any part of the crane or load (including
handling appendages) shall be 10 ft. (3 m).”

82
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Fig. 4. Approach to 4D modeling for tower crane design.

construction cost was approximately $310 million. The construction

phase, completed in October 2017, was 22 months long. Two fixed-
based hammerhead tower cranes were applied to assist in the con-
struction process. The BIM models of major building systems, such as
architectural, structural, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
(MEP), were collected from the general contractor to assist the de-
monstration and validation. The research team conducted multiple in-
terviews with the project management team to acquire data regarding
the alternative plans reviewed in pre-construction planning, along with
the site-specific constraints that engineers used to validate the plans.
The final version of the crane plan was obtained from the general
contractor. Among the alternative plans, one was feasible and im-
plemented in construction. The results of a review by the project team
were provided to the research team as the “ground truth” to validate
the framework.

4.1. Development of alternative plans and 4D model

To apply this framework, the research team developed the 4D model

for tower crane planning following the steps presented in Fig. 5. This
process started with formalizing the alternative plans that were used by
the planners in a real-world scenario. The second step is organizing the
site-specific rules in a formalized manner. Formalized rules define the
objects and their attributes that are needed to conduct the rule-based
checking. Therefore, formalized rules are fundamental for determining
model scope and LOD, as well as crane phases. The building model and
the tower crane model are generated according to site-specific rules. Fig. 5. Summary of steps for developing a 4D tower crane model.
The last step is merging the building model and the tower crane model,
and assigning phase information to relevant elements.
the alternative index. The configuration data of each alternative is
Five alternative plans were carefully reviewed by the project team
compliant with manufacturer permitted data. Alternative 1 was a fea-
in the pre-construction phase. Therefore, the researchers reviewed
sible plan that was actually implemented in the project execution.
those alternatives using this framework. Table 2 presents each alter-
As shown in Fig. 6, the locations of crane foundations vary among
native in detail. The major differences between alternatives are the
alternative plans. SK575 and SK315 are placed on two opposite corners
location and the configuration of two tower cranes. Equipment model
on the jobsite. The project engineers consciously selected such combi-
was fixed due to availability; it was not a decision variable. The re-
nation of locations as alternative plans, because it allows cranes to
searchers labeled the SK575 as crane “a” and the SK315 as crane “b” in

83
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Table 2
Summary of alternative plans reviewed in pre-construction planning.
Alternatives index Model Configuration Location

Mast height (ft.) Jib length (ft.) Max hook height (ft.) (from top of foundation) X Y Z (top of foundation)

1.a SK575 267 213 255 7 −195 534

1.b SK315 208 230 198 −15 −522 528
2.a SK575 233 246 221 7 −195 534
2.b SK315 208 180 198 −15 −522 528
3.a SK575 267 213 255 67 −195 534
3.b SK315 208 230 198 −170 −522 528
4.a SK575 233 246 221 67 −195 534
4.b SK315 208 180 198 −170 −522 528
5.a SK575 267 213 255 122 −270 534
5.b SK315 208 230 198 −195 −413 528

Fig. 6. Tower crane foundation layout of five alternative plans.

provide coverages over the most of the to-be-built structure. The jobsite
has a sloped ground with the northeast corner at a higher elevation.
Hence, SK575 has a higher elevation than SK315 when it comes to the
top of the foundation. The location and size of material yards desig-
nated to each crane are shown in Fig. 6 as well.
Based on an in-depth review of the crane plan, the researchers found
that the project team was leveraging four construction events to vali-
date the alternative plans: lifting the atrium panels, lifting the con-
struction materials for cast-in-place (CIP) concrete decks, lifting the
formwork of staircase well, and tower crane assembly as well as
disassembly. Each of the four events can challenge alternative plans
with respect to spatial constraints, or capacity constraints, or a com-
bination of both. Table 3 presents the number of constraints in each of
the four events.
For demonstration purposes, the spatial and capacity constraints of
the atrium panels are shown in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. The spatial
constraints include two main categories: the minimum clearance be-
tween crane element and its surroundings (e.g., A-S-1, -2, -9, and -10),
as well as the coverage over the targeted area by boom (e.g., A-S-3 to A-
S-8, A-S-11, and -12). The thresholds in spatial constraints are site-

84
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Table 3
Site-specific constraints for reviewing alternative plans.
Atrium panels CIP Decks Formwork of staircases well Erection & dismantle

Spatial Capacity Spatial Capacity Spatial Capacity Spatial Capacity

# of constraints 12 8 13 8 NA 5 10 NA

For example, if the 4D model is developed only for checking A-S-1

Table 4
Description of spatial constraints governing atrium panels lifting.
Constraint index Description
A-S-1 The minimum vertical distance between the booms of tower
cranes is 35 ft.
A-S-2 The minimum horizontal distance between SK315 boom and
SK575 mast is 50 ft.
A-S-3 SK575 boom covers the 3rd floor concrete slab of the north
building.
A-S-4 SK315 boom covers the 3rd floor concrete slab of the south
building.
A-S-5 SK575 boom covers the 1st floor concrete slab of the north
building.
A-S-6 SK315 boom covers the 1st floor concrete slab of the south
building.
A-S-7 SK575 boom covers the middle sections of the atrium panels.
A-S-8 SK575 boom covers the end sections of the atrium panels.
A-S-9 The minimum vertical distance between SK315 boom and the
Roof Level is 38 ft.
A-S-10 The minimum horizontal distance between foundation (and
mast) of both cranes and the surroundings are 12 ft.
A-S-11 SK575 boom covers its designated material yard.
A-S-12 SK315 boom covers its designated material yard.
specific and should be determined by competent personnel. In this case,
the values are defined by the collaboration of project owner and the
general contractor.
The capacity constraints represent that the responsible crane should
provide sufficient lifting capacity at both the supply spots (e.g., A-C-1,
-3, -5, and -6) and the demand spots (e.g., A-C-2, -4, -7, and -8). The
thresholds in capacity constraints deserve attention, especially when it
gets close to the capacity at lifting radius. In this case, the planner
derived the values of 10,500 lbs. (4763 kg) and 7000 lbs. (3175 kg) as
the minimum capacity governing the capacity constraints.
The process to conclude the minimum capacity for a given activity is
demonstrated in Table 6. The gross weight is typically the summation of
the weight of items, rigging accessories, and the block. The weight of
rigging accessories and the block range from 1000 lbs. (454 kg) to
2500 lbs. (1134 kg). To increase the safety margin in operations, it is a
good practice to limit the gross weight below 85% of total capacity at
lift radius. Otherwise, that particular lift is considered a critical lift,
which requires rigorous planning and extra permitting for approval.
Formalized rules specify the model scope and LOD. Table 7 presents
the formalized site-specific rules regarding A-S-1 and A-S-2. The scope
of the model is defined by objects, and the LOD is specified by the
attributes of each object.
rule, the scope of the model is defined by the objects of A-S-1:
SK575_Jib and SK315_Jib. An LOD 200 model (see Fig. 7) that contains
the information of Top_Elevation and Bottom_Elevation of the booms is
sufficient. An LOD 300 model is not needed to review A-S-1 rule.
Site-specific crane phases are also developed based on all rules ap-
plied to review the alternative plans. In this case study, six phases were
developed: 1) pre-assembly; 2) erection; 3) operation-0-2Level; 4) op-
eration-3-9Level; 5) dismantle; and 6) post-dismantle. Fig. 8 shows the
conditions at the end of each site-specific crane phase.
4.2. Implementation of rule-based checking
This section demonstrates the process of updating models and rule
sets (when needed) in the iterative review of alternative plans. The
general process is illustrated in Fig. 9. Automated iterations, reduced
manual input, and shorter iteration time are achieved, compared with
the manual approach and prior research studies. Alternative plans, site-
specific constraints, and a 4D tower crane model are input information.
In each iterative review, the 4D tower crane model is updated based on
the alternative plan that is currently under investigation. A rule-set is
developed in the first round of iteration according to the site-specific
constraints. The rules get minor updates in the subsequent iterations
when necessary. Iteration terminates when all alternative plans have
been reviewed.
This study used Solibri Model Checker (v9.7) for rule-based
checking. The 4D model was developed and updated in Autodesk Revit
2017, with the assistance of a Dynamo definition that was specifically
devised for preparing a tower crane model. This Dynamo definition was
the outcome of another study by the research group [35]. Users can
accurately place tower crane models into any building BIM model using
this Dynamo definition. The tower crane models presented by this de-
finition comply with manufacturer permitted specifications. Fig. 10
presents an example of a tower crane model. The “coverage” represents
the range of area that a tower crane's boom can reach. The “lift capacity
at radius” stands for the area where certain lift capacity is available.
Each tower crane model can have multiple “lift capacity at radius” to
satisfy the requirements of rule-based checking.
4.3. Validation
To evaluate the effectiveness of the framework, precision and recall
rates, as well as the final decision by the proposed framework, were
analyzed. The research team applied the rule-based 4D approach on this
real-world project to evaluate the alternatives. In addition, an

Table 5
Description of capacity constraints governing lifting atrium panels.
Constraint index Description

A-C-1 SK575 has the capacity of 10,500 lbs. at its designated material yard.
A-C-2 SK575 has the capacity of 10,500 lbs. at all eight middle sections of the atrium panel.
A-C-3 SK575 has the capacity of 7000 lbs. at its designated material yard.
A-C-4 SK575 has the capacity of 7000 lbs. at two end sections of the atrium panel.
A-C-5 SK315 has the capacity of 10,500 lbs. at its designated material yard.
A-C-6 SK315 has the capacity of 7000 lbs. at its designated material yard.
A-C-7 Either SK575 or SK315 has the capacity of 10,500 lbs. at all eight middle sections of the atrium panel.
A-C-8 Either SK575 or SK315 has the capacity of 7000 lbs. at two end sections of the atrium panel.

85
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Table 6
Minimum capacity of tower crane for atrium panels at lift radius.
Line and block weight (lbs.)⇒ 1500 lbs.

Lift no. Weight Item Gross weight Height (above ground level) % of chart Minimum capacity

1–8 7500 lbs. Sun shade double panel – Middle sections 9000 lbs. 129 ft. 85% 10,500 lbs.
9–10 4500 lbs. Sun shade single panel – End sections 6000 lbs. 129 ft. 85% 7000 lbs.

Table 7
Example of formalized site-specific constraints.
Constraint index Condition Object A Attributes of A Object B Attributes of B Operator Threshold

A-S-1 Operation_3-9Level SK575_Jib Bottom_Elevation SK315_Jib Top_Elevation ≥ 35 ft.

SK575_Jib. Bottom_Elevation − SK315_Jib. Top_Elevation ≥ 35 ft.
A-S-2 Operation_3-9Level SK315_Jib Radius (X, Y, Z) SK575_Mast (X, Y, Z) ≥ 50 ft.
Sqrt[(SK575_Mast.X − SK315_Jib.X)^2 − (SK575_Mast.Y − SK315_Jib.Y)^2] ≥ 50 ft.

LOD 200 LOD 300

Fig. 7. Tower crane model with booms at different LODs.

Pre-Assembly Erection Operation-0-2 Level

Operation-3-9 Level Dismantle Post-Dismantle

Fig. 8. Tower crane planning model at the end of each site-specific crane phase.

evaluation of the alternatives using the traditional manual approach
was conducted. Table 8 contains the results of both tests. Recall rate
describes the percentage rate of relevant conflicts the framework suc-
cessfully retrieved. From the recall rate in Table 8, the researcher ob-
served that the rule-based 4D approach had a consistently high recall
rate and outperformed the manual approach. The framework provides a
more comprehensive search in the solution space of tower crane plan-
ning.
The proposed approach is meant for decision support. To demon-
strate the correctness of decisions suggested by this approach, the
intermediate and final decision on each alternative plans are summar-
ized in Table 9. Given that the final decisions from proposed framework
are consistent with those provided by the project team, the effectiveness
is demonstrated.
The recall rates of most items were nearly 100%, with an exception
in spatial conflicts on the atrium panel installation. One false negative
was found when the results were compared with the “ground truth”. In
practical terms, engineers believed that when one design alternative
(i.e. index 5.b) was selected the tagline would be blocked by the
building and deemed unsafe for execution, without using a second pair

86
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Table 8
Precision and recall rates based on observation of manual approach and this
framework.
Items analyzed Manual Rule-based Elements needed to
approach 4D approach capture all clashes

Atrium-Spatial Precision 5/5 = 1.00 8/24 = 0.33

(A-S) Recall 5/9 = 0.56 8/9 = 0.89 Tagline, clearance
objects, a new rule
set to represent the
safety protocol for
using taglines
Atrium-Capacity Precision 2/2 = 1.00 7/21 = 0.33
(A-C) Recall 2/7 = 0.29 7/7 = 1.00
CIP Deck-Spatial Precision 4/4 = 1.00 6/23 = 0.26
(D-S) Recall 4/6 = 0.67 6/6 = 1.00
CIP Deck- Precision 4/4 = 1.00 4/18 = 0.22
Capacity (D- Recall 4/4 = 1.00 4/4 = 1.00
C)
Formwork- Precision 2/2 = 1.00 4/30 = 0.13
Capacity (F- Recall 2/4 = 0.50 4/4 = 1.00
C)
Erection/ Precision 3/3 = 1.00 3/10 = 0.30
Dismantle- Recall 3/3 = 0.30 3/3 = 1.00
Fig. 9. Process to conduct rule-based iterative validation of alternative plans. Spatial (ED-
S)

of taglines (see Fig. 11). As taglines were not included in the model, the
framework failed to capture this conflict.
The rule-based 4D plan validation has a relatively low precision
rate, even though the recall rate is consistently high, which means the
search is comprehensive in the solution space. We observed that many
of the retrieved clashes are false positives (FP). For example, the
Formwork-Capacity (F-C) rule set generated 26 false positives (see
Table 8), of which over half is attributed to the case illustrated in
Fig. 12. The case is applying the capacity rule set for a staircase well
formwork with alternative plan 4. The system retrieved 17 issues in
total, out of which 15 were false positives and only two were true po-
sitives. False positives are issues that can be resolved if the true posi-
tives are resolved. Specifically, for staircase-1, SK575 cannot provide
sufficient capacity to four panels. However, three are false positive
because they will not suffer capacity limitation when SK575 have
Note: 1) Precision = TP / (TP + FP), Recall = TP / (TP + FN); 2) TP: true con-
flicts retrieved by prototype, FP: false conflicts retrieved by prototype, FN:
actual conflicts, not retrieved by prototype.
enough capacity on the farthest panel. Similarly, in the case of stair-
case-2, twelve issues were false positive. The rules cannot distinguish
the cluster of twelve clashes; however, an experienced engineer can
identify the existence of multiple clashes. Given that the automated
validation leads to a comprehensive identification of issues in a fraction
of the time needed in the manual approach, the example of low pre-
cision rate is expected and acceptable. In addition, the cost and con-
sequence of dealing with field detected tower crane issues is prohibi-
tive. Therefore, the importance of recall outweighs that of precision.
Table 10 displays the number of steps required to update both
models and rule sets before the beginning of each iteration. This metric

Fig. 10. Parametric tower crane model.

87
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Table 9
Final decisions made by the proposed framework on each alternative in the validation test case.
Alternative Rule-based 4D approach Decision by the project team

A-S A-C D-S D-C F-C ED-S Decision

1 Valid Valid
2 Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid
3 Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid
4 Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid
5 Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid

Fig. 11. Schematic view of lifting the end section of the atrium panel using SK315 – tagline issue.

reflects the amount of effort required of the user to ready this system for this proposed system, we were able to review, in less than 30 min, five
the next iteration. The preparation work requires manual input. A alternatives against spatial and capacity conflicts in all four scenarios.
smaller value indicates that the framework can provide higher effi- Admittedly, a user might affect the actual duration of design review
ciency for crane design review. The data shows that a minimal number when implementing this prototype in a real-world project, depending
of manual interventions are needed after the first iteration is complete, on how proficient users are with the system setup. However, the re-
which means a user needs to make only minor updates to the system to search outcome demonstrates the capability of this approach in redu-
prepare it for the next alternative design review. For example, to pre- cing the amount of manual input and improving the level of automation
pare the model for reviewing the alternatives on the spatial rule set in in tower crane design review.
the atrium panel installation, five steps are needed to start: formalized
site-specific constraints, alternative plans, the 4D model, the rule set,
5. Discussions and conclusions
and the iteration process (as shown in Fig. 9). However, starting from
the second round of iteration, only two steps are needed: update the 4D
This study has proposed a framework that integrates 4D modeling
model based on the alternative plan (with the assistance of Dynamo for
and rule-based checking for tower crane design review in the pre-con-
semi-automation), and update the items in the rule set (i.e., manually
struction phase. The prototype system is able to automatically capture
update the objects). Compared to the current manual approach, which
potential spatial and capacity conflicts associated with candidate de-
demands a similar amount of effort for every iteration, this framework
signs. A template of parametric rules for crane design review was de-
can significantly reduce manual input and provides a higher level of
veloped based on prevailing tower crane design standards (i.e., OSHA
automation for tower crane design review. To better contextualize the
1926 and ASME B30.3). In this study, we also developed an approach to
improvement, in the current state of practice the case study's site su-
integrate 4D modeling and rule-based checking to assist design review.
perintendent used drawings and other hardcopy project documents,
This research demonstrates that requirements for a tower crane design-
spending over 2 h to roughly understand if these five design alternatives
reviewing system are different from conventional BIM for design co-
would have any spatial and/or capacity conflicts in only two scenar-
ordination or construction schedule simulation. The performance of this
ios—installing the atrium panels and CIP decks. Whereas, by leveraging
framework is shown through implementing the prototype system in an

88
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

Fig. 12. Examples of true positives and false positives.

Table 10
Number of steps for preparing the system before each iteration — Efficiency.
Alternatives Atrium panels CIP decks Formwork of staircases Erection & dismantle

Spatial Capacity Spatial Capacity Spatial Capacity Spatial Capacity

1 5
2 2
3 2
4 2
5 2
6 4
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
5 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 2 1
1 1 1 2 1
1 1 1 2 1
1 1 1 2 1

actual building construction project. The prototype system was able to
effectively identify spatial and capacity constraints violated by each
design alternative. The high recall rate suggests this prototype can
generate reliable evaluations of design alternatives. Meanwhile, the
manual input in the iterative review process was drastically reduced by
using the proposed approach when compared to the current approach.
From a user's standpoint, when checking each design alternative, one
needs less time as well as less manual intervention. In real-world cases,
in a given time frame, the project team can expand the search space and
explore the validity of more design options. Additionally, this frame-
work can be adapted to daily tower crane management if as-build
models and actual schedules are used as input, instead of design models
and as-planned schedules, respectively.
In applying the framework to the validation case study, researchers
found the following limitations. 1) The optimal solution is not ne-
cessarily suggested by this system, as the rules represent the minimal
requirements for feasibility; the optimal solution is a subset of feasible
designs. 2) Disregarded conflicts could exist, if the site-specific rules or
model lack associated details, such as the tagline missing from the va-
lidation case.
Future work will focus on an approach to further reduce the solution
space of tower crane planning problem. Crane collaboration will be
considered as additional constraints for validation. To achieve this goal,
a promising solution seems to be optimization. Researchers also plan to

89
Y. Ji, F. Leite Automation in Construction 93 (2018) 78–90

explore complex tower crane usage conditions, such as height altera- 2014.10.010.
tion, and tagline validation. [23] F. Ju, Y.S. Choo, Dynamic analysis of tower cranes, J. Eng. Mech. 131 (2005) 88–96,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:1(88).
[24] F. Leite, Y. Cho, A.H. Behzadan, S. Lee, S. Choe, Y. Fang, R. Akhavian, S. Hwang,
References Visualization, information modeling, and simulation: grand challenges in the con-
struction industry, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (2016) 4016035, , http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000604.
[1] J.D. Glascock, A. Shapira, Culture of using mobile cranes for building construction,
[25] S. Staub-French, A. Khanzode, 3D and 4D modeling for design and construction
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 122 (1996) 298–307, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
coordination: issues and lessons learned, J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 12 (2007) 381–407
0733-9364(1996)122:4(298).
http://itcon.org/2007/26.
[2] A. Shapira, G. Lucko, C. Schexnayder, Cranes for building construction projects, J.
[26] K. McKinney, J. Kim, M. Fischer, C. Howard, Interactive 4D-CAD, Proceedings of
Constr. Eng. Manag. 133 (2007) 690–700, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
the Third Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Anaheim, CA, 1996,
9364(2007)133:9(690).
pp. 383–389.
[3] A. Shapira, A. Elbaz, Tower crane cycle times: case study of remote-control versus
[27] S.-C. Kang, E. Miranda, Computational methods for coordinating multiple con-
cab-control operation, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (2014) 5014010, , http://dx.doi.
struction cranes, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 22 (2008) 252–263, http://dx.doi.org/10.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000904.
1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2008)22:4(252).
[4] J.E. Beavers, J.R. Moore, R. Rinehart, W.R. Schriver, Crane-related fatalities in the
[28] M. Al-Hussein, S. Alkass, O. Moselhi, Optimization algorithm for selection and on
construction industry, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 132 (2006) 901–910, http://dx.doi.
site location of mobile cranes, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131 (2005) 579–590, http://
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:9(901).
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(579).
[5] H. Jimmie, P. Caroline, F. John, Identifying root causes of construction injuries, J.
[29] J.K.W. Yeoh, D.K.H. Chua, Optimizing crane selection and location for multistage
Constr. Eng. Manag. 124 (1998) 67–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
construction using a four-dimensional set cover approach, J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
9364(1998)124:1(67).
143 (2017) 4017029, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001318.
[6] A.J.-P. Tixier, M.R. Hallowell, B. Rajagopalan, D. Bowman, Construction safety
[30] C. Huang, C.K. Wong, C.M. Tam, Optimization of tower crane and material supply
clash detection: identifying safety incompatibilities among fundamental attributes
locations in a high-rise building site by mixed-integer linear programming, Autom.
using data mining, Autom. Constr. 74 (2017) 39–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Constr. 20 (2011) 571–580, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.11.023.
autcon.2016.11.001.
[31] S. Zolfagharian, J. Irizarry, Current trends in construction site layout planning,
[7] A. Shapira, Y. Rosenfeld, I. Mizrahi, Vision system for tower cranes, J. Constr. Eng.
Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network, ASCE,
Manag. 134 (2008) 320–332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)
Reston, VA, 2014, pp. 1723–1732, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784413517.
134:5(320).
176.
[8] L.K. Shapiro, J.P. Shapiro, Cranes and Derricks, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2011
[32] D.A. Salama, N.M. El-Gohary, Automated compliance checking of construction
(ISBN: 9780071625579; 0071625577).
operation plans using a deontology for the construction domain, J. Comput. Civ.
[9] M. Al-Hussein, M. Athar Niaz, H. Yu, H. Kim, Integrating 3D visualization and si-
Eng. 27 (2013) 681–698, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.
mulation for tower crane operations on construction sites, Autom. Constr. 15 (2006)
0000298.
554–562, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2005.07.007.
[33] S. Zhang, J. Teizer, J.-K. Lee, C.M. Eastman, M. Venugopal, Building information
[10] H.L. Guo, H. Li, V. Li, VP-based safety management in large-scale construction
modeling (BIM) and safety: automatic safety checking of construction models and
projects: a conceptual framework, Autom. Constr. 34 (2013) 16–24, http://dx.doi.
schedules, Autom. Constr. 29 (2013) 183–195, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.013.
2012.05.006.
[11] T. Huang, C.W. Kong, H.L. Guo, A. Baldwin, H. Li, A virtual prototyping system for
[34] C.M. Tam, T.K.L. Tong, GA-ANN model for optimizing the locations of tower crane
simulating construction processes, Autom. Constr. 16 (2007) 576–585, http://dx.
and supply points for high-rise public housing construction, Constr. Manag. Econ.
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.09.007.
21 (2003) 257–266, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000049665.
[12] J. Irizarry, E.P. Karan, Optimizing location of tower cranes on construction sites
[35] Y. Ji, F. Leite, Automated tower crane planning leveraging BIM and rule-based
through GIS and BIM integration, J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 17 (2012) 361–366
checking, Construction Research Congress, ASCE, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2018,
http://www.itcon.org/2012/23.
pp. 54–63, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784481264.006.
[13] S.S. Kumar, J.C.P. Cheng, A BIM-based automated site layout planning framework
[36] C.M. Eastman, J. Lee, Y. Jeong, J. Lee, Automatic rule-based checking of building
for congested construction sites, Autom. Constr. 59 (2015) 24–37, http://dx.doi.
designs, Autom. Constr. 18 (2009) 1011–1033, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.008.
autcon.2009.07.002.
[14] P. Zhang, F.C. Harris, P.O. Olomolaiye, G.D. Holt, Location optimization for a group
[37] K.P. Lam, N.H. Wong, L.J. Shen, A. Mahdavi, E. Leong, W. Solihin, K.S. Au, Z. Kang,
of tower cranes, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 125 (1999) 115–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.
Mapping of industry building product model for detailed thermal simulation and
1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:2(115).
analysis, Adv. Eng. Softw. 37 (2006) 133–145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
[15] K. Tantisevi, B. Akinci, Transformation of a 4D product and process model to
advengsoft.2005.05.005.
generate motion of mobile cranes, Autom. Constr. 18 (2009) 458–468, http://dx.
[38] J. Zhang, N.M. El-Gohary, Semantic NLP-based information extraction from con-
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.10.008.
struction regulatory documents for automated compliance checking, J. Comput.
[16] J. Wang, X. Zhang, W. Shou, X. Wang, B. Xu, M.J. Kim, P. Wu, A BIM-based ap-
Civ. Eng. 30 (2016) 4015014, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.
proach for automated tower crane layout planning, Autom. Constr. 59 (2015)
0000346.
168–178, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.05.006.
[39] J.-K. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Jeong, H. Sheward, P. Sanguinetti, S. Abdelmohsen,
[17] W.C. Hornaday, C.T. Haas, J.T. O'Connor, J. Wen, Computer-aided planning for
C.M. Eastman, Development of space database for automated building design re-
heavy lifts, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 119 (1993) 498–515, http://dx.doi.org/10.
view systems, Autom. Constr. 24 (2012) 203–212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)119:3(498).
autcon.2012.03.002.
[18] B.J.A. Appleton, M.A. Niaz, S.M. Abourizk, M. Al-Hussein, Y. Mohamed, Priority
[40] D.M. Salama, N.M. El-Gohary, Semantic text classification for supporting automated
rating logic simulation model for tower crane operations management, J. Constr.
compliance checking in construction, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (2013) 4014106,
Res. 7 (2006) 133–147, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1609945106000451.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000301.
[19] J. Yang, P. Vela, J. Teizer, Z. Shi, Vision-based tower crane tracking for under-
[41] K.W. Chau, M. Anson, J.P. Zhang, Four-dimensional visualization of construction
standing construction activity, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 28 (2014) 103–112, http://dx.
scheduling and site utilization, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 130 (2004) 598–606, http://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000242.
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:4(598).
[20] G. Lee, J. Cho, S. Ham, T. Lee, G. Lee, S.-H. Yun, H.-J. Yang, A BIM- and sensor-
[42] M. Golparvar-Fard, F. Peña-Mora, S. Savarese, D4AR–a 4-dimensional augmented
based tower crane navigation system for blind lifts, Autom. Constr. 26 (2012) 1–10,
reality model for automating construction progress monitoring data collection,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.05.002.
processing and communication, J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 14 (2009) 129–153 http://
[21] S.-C. Kang, H.-L. Chi, E. Miranda, Three-dimensional simulation and visualization of
www.itcon.org/2009/13.
crane assisted construction erection processes, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 23 (2009)
[43] S. Choe, F. Leite, Temporal and spatial information integration for construction
363–371, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2009)23:6(363).
safety planning, Computing in Civil Engineering 2015, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.
[22] I.J. Shin, Factors that affect safety of tower crane installation/dismantling in con-
1061/9780784479247.060.
struction industry, Saf. Sci. 72 (2015) 379–390, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.

90