4D-BIM Dynamic Time–Space Conflict Detection and

Quantification System for Building Construction Projects

Ali Mirzaei 1; Farnad Nasirzadeh 2; Majid Parchami Jalal 3; and Yasin Zamani 4

Abstract: Workspace in construction projects is considered a resource and a constraint that needs to be addressed in project scheduling.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Without proper workspace planning, time–space conflicts frequently may occur at construction sites. In this study, a novel four-dimensional
building information modeling (4D-BIM) dynamic conflict detection and quantification system was developed to identify time–space
conflicts and quantify their impacts on project performance. Using the proposed approach, the conflict between different activities work-
spaces was identified considering the labor crew movement in the assigned workspace during different time intervals. For this purpose, four
distinct execution patterns were defined, which in combination with four starting positions, led to 16 execution alternatives. The conflict’s
severity was then calculated through the quantitative assessment of its effects on labor productivity. To evaluate the performance of the
proposed approach, it was implemented on a building project. The time–space conflicts were detected and quantified using the proposed
approach. Finally, a what-if analysis was performed to select the optimum execution scenario with the minimum number of time–space
conflicts. Using the proposed approach, conflict detection can be performed more accurately, and a more precise value for conflict severity
is achieved. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001504. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction projects; Dynamic conflict detection; Labor productivity; Workspace; Four-dimensional (4D); Building
information modeling (BIM).

Introduction number of resources assigned to activities, respectively (Project

In construction projects, each activity requires different types of
workspace to be executed (Akinci et al. 2002b). Workspace is
considered both a resource and a constraint in project scheduling
(Choi et al. 2014; Chavada et al. 2012; Su and Cai 2014; Akinci
et al. 2002a). Without proper workspace planning, time–space
conflicts can frequently occur at construction sites (Su and Cai
2014). A time–space conflict is a situation in which labor crews
assigned to two or more concurrent activities share a common
workspace (Chavada et al. 2012; Kassem et al. 2015). Time–space
conflicts significantly hinder the performance of interfering activ-
ities (Akinci et al. 2002a) and are among the major causes of con-
struction labor productivity loss (Kaming et al. 1997).
Moreover, in most construction projects the project schedule
frequently needs to be compressed (Gunduz 2004). The main sched-
ule compression techniques are fast tracking and crashing, which
refer to the parallel execution of activities and the increase in the
1 Wang et al. 2004), efforts have been made to develop new 4D-based
Dept. of Project and Construction Management, Faculty of Architecture,
College of Fine Arts, Univ. of Tehran, P.O. BOX 14395-515, 16 Azar St.,
Enghelab Square, 1417466191 Tehran, Iran. Email: amirzaei2@gmail.com
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Built Environment,
Deakin Univ., Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia. Email: farnad.nasirzadeh@
deakin.edu.au
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Project and Construction Management,
Faculty of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, Univ. of Tehran, P.O.
BOX 14395-515, 16 Azar St., Enghelab Square, 1417466191 Tehran, Iran
(corresponding author). Email: parchamijalal@ut.ac.ir
4
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computer
Engineering, Sharif Univ., P.O. Box: 11155-9517, Azadi Ave., 1458889694
Tehran, Iran. Email: yasin.zamani@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 15, 2017; approved on
December 18, 2017; published online on April 30, 2018. Discussion period
open until September 30, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
Management Institute 2013). Compression of the project schedule
therefore increases the probability and severity of time–space
conflicts.
Several studies have been conducted to take space as a resource
into account during the project planning and scheduling, and the
studies identify potential time–space conflicts prior to construction.
A change in the location and the dimension of the activities work-
space required in all three dimensions and through time is consid-
ered a major challenge in planning workspace in comparison with
other resources (Akinci et al. 2002a). The current scheduling tech-
niques such as the critical path method (CPM) and the Gantt chart
do not convey the spatial aspects of activities and are inadequate
for workspace planning and time–space conflict detection (Koo
and Fischer 2000; Kassem et al. 2015). Recently, because of the
development of the four-dimensional computer-aided design and
building information modeling (4D CAD/BIM) models generated
by linking project schedule information to spatial information
(McKinney and Fischer 1998; Ma et al. 2005; Eastman et al. 2011;
approaches to assign activities the workspace required, detect time–
space conflicts, analyze their severity, and manage the conflicts.
Literature Review
The process of site layout planning can be considered the inception
of workspace planning–related research in building construction
projects. Layout areas are one of the most mentioned types of
spaces in workspace planning and management research (Wu and
Chiu 2010; Gu 2002; Choi et al. 2014; Akinci et al. 2002a, b, c;
Riley and Sanvido 1995; Tommelein et al. 1993; Dawood and
Mallasi 2006). Riley and Sanvido (1995) developed a workspace
classification in building construction projects. Their emphasis was
on site layout areas as one of the most important workspace con-
straints. Akinci et al. (2002a, b, c) classified the building project

© ASCE 04018056-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056

 workspaces as microlevel, macrolevel, and path spaces. Macrolevel
spaces refer to site layout–related workspaces, which are occupied
by stores, workshops, and heavy equipment such as cranes and
batching plants. Over the past few years, a great deal of research
has been conducted in the field of the site layout planning problem
to account for its dynamic nature. For instance, in one of the earliest
studies, Tommelein et al. (1993) considered changes in facilities
location as the project progressed and tried to connect the layout
plan to the project schedule plan. This research was the starting
point for the idea of considering the change in location and the
dimension of activities workspace through time by linking the
project schedule information to the spatial information in the plan-
ning of the workspace.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
According to previous studies, workspace planning consists of
three steps: workspace definition and allocation, conflict detection,
and resolution of detected conflicts.
Akinci et al. (2002a, b, c) developed a semiautomatic approach
to define and generate activity workspaces based on the construc-
tion method. A space-loaded product model was developed in the
4D WorkPlanner Space Generator using the reference object, ori-
entation, and volumetric parameters. Moon et al. (2014b) used a
genetic algorithm to optimize the project schedule, taking account
of workspace interferences that considered both the temporal and
the spatial aspects. Su and Cai (2014) proposed a lifecycle-based
approach for the purpose of workspace modeling and planning.
A workspace identification and adjustment method was also devel-
oped to facilitate workspace generation. Moon et al. (2014a) pre-
sented a workspace generation framework using an object- and
surface-based bounding box model and an algorithm for time–
space conflict detection and visualization through 4D simulation.
Kassem et al. (2015) proposed a construction workspace manage-
ment framework that was implemented through an industry foun-
dation classes (IFC) compliant 4D tool consisting of workspace
generation and allocation, time–space conflict detection, and con-
flict resolution.
The previously mentioned studies neglected resource movement
in the definition of workspace requirements and assumed that the
labor allocated to an activity occupies the entire assigned workspace
throughout its duration. However, for the execution of many activ-
ities, the labor crew occupies a specific part of the entire activity
workspace during each time interval. In other words, the space uti-
lization by the labor has a dynamic nature. Therefore, the activity
dynamics need to be addressed in workspace planning through
parameters such as the start position, execution pattern, and progress
rate. Recently, a few studies have addressed the importance of con-
sidering the changes in the required workspace throughout the ac-
tivity duration. Mallasi (2006) and Dawood and Mallasi (2006)
developed a workspace visual simulation with 12 execution patterns
and three types of work rate distribution, in which conflicts were
detected through the determination of the elements that need to
be constructed each week. Although their approach may have been
theoretically novel in this field, it seemed rather difficult to imple-
ment (Chavada et al. 2012). Conflict detection in two dimensions
and long weekly intervals could be considered the shortcomings of
this study. Choi et al. (2014) presented the concept of space occu-
pation to address resource movement and found this concept to be
crucial to the precision in conflict detection.
Several studies have concentrated on time–space conflict reso-
lution as one of the workspace planning steps and have presented
different qualitative and quantitative measures in this regard (Guo
2002; Chavada et al. 2012; Moon et al. 2014b; Kassem et al. 2015).
To minimize the time–space conflicts and achieve an optimum
schedule, reliable and valid criteria for conflict severity assessment
and therefore conflict comparison and prioritization are required.
© ASCE 04018056-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056
Akinci et al. (2002c) suggested a conflict ratio, which is the ratio
between the conflict volume and the required space volume as a
conflict severity criterion. Guo (2002) measured the time–space
conflict severity through the interference space percentage (ISP)
and interference duration percentage (IDP), which refer to the ratio
between the interference space size and the original size and the
ratio between the interference duration and the original duration
of each activity, respectively. Mallasi (2006) and Dawood and Mal-
lasi (2006) developed a critical space–time analysis approach in
which conflicts were identified on two-dimensional (2D) plans in
each weekly simulation and the weekly conflict severity was calcu-
lated through a five-criteria quantification index. Chavada et al.
(2012) and Kassem et al. (2015) used the concept of space supply
and demand to assess the congestion severity in spaces allocated to
activities, regardless of the results of the spatial and temporal
conflicts.
In the previously mentioned studies, the conflict severity was
assessed by an index as the ratio between the conflict volume and
the workspace volume or the interference duration and activity du-
ration. However, these indices cannot quantify the impact of con-
flicts on project performance.
Table 1 summarizes novel aspects of the current research in
comparison with previous research in terms of workspace dynam-
ics, support platform space (a space occupied by temporary equip-
ment that is set up to facilitate labor access to high elevations),
conflict detection, conflict impact classification, and severity
quantification.
In summary, the current study resolves some of the major short-
comings of previous research in time–space conflict detection and
conflict severity assessment. The majority of previous studies as-
sume that the workspace assigned to each activity is needed by the
labor allocated to it for the entire duration of the activity (Choi et al.
2014). However, for execution of some activities, the required labor
occupies only a portion of the activity workspace during each time
interval (Choi et al. 2014; Riley and Sanvido 1995). Neglecting this
fact may lead to unrealistic conflict detection.
Moreover, in previous studies, the conflict severity was assessed
as the ratio of the interference space size and the original workspace
or as the ratio of the interference duration and the activity duration.
None of the previous studies, however, could quantify the effects of
time–space conflicts on project performance. Therefore, the value
of conflict severity may not be precisely assessed.
In this study, a new approach was developed and implemented
to dynamically detect time–space conflicts and to quantify their im-
pacts on project performance. Using the proposed approach, the
conflict between different workspace activities was identified con-
sidering the labor crew movement in the assigned workspace dur-
ing different time intervals. For this purpose, four distinct execution
patterns were defined, which in combination with the four starting
positions, led to 16 execution alternatives. Therefore, in each time
interval, the real location of the labor crew in the activity workspace
was determined. Moreover, the support platform (the equipment
used to facilitate access to high elevations) requirement was auto-
matically evaluated considering the location of the labor crew
during each time interval. If a support platform was required,
the space occupied by it was automatically defined and generated.
Subsequently, the time–space conflicts were detected through a 4D
model. Then, the conflict severity was calculated using a new ap-
proach that accounted for the conflict space size and the labor con-
gestion in each activity workspace (Fig. 1). The conflict space size
refers to the conflict area, and the labor congestion is defined as the
ratio between the number of workers and the activity workspace
area. Through this approach, the space overlap and workspace uti-
lization are taken into account for the conflict assessment on the
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Novel aspects of the current study compared with previous research
Conflict

© ASCE
Implementation Time-space conflict impact Conflict severity
References environment Workspace dynamics Support platform space detection classification Conflict severity index quantification
Akinci et al. 4D CAD Not considered Identification of equipment Schedule overlap Yes Conflict ratio (the ratio No
(2002a, b, c) requirement based on the detection/automatic between conflicting volume
construction method and conflict detection using a and volume of the space
semiautomatic generation 3D geometric clash required)
of equipment space detection algorithm
Guo (2002) CAD Not considered Not considered Detection of conflict No ISP (the ratio between No
through tracing labor interference space size and
workspace demand on original size)
2D CAD drawings in IDP (the ratio between
different time periods interference duration and
original duration)
Mallasi (2006)/ 4D CAD Workspace simulation on Not considered Clash detection on 2D Yes A multicriteria function No
Dawood and a weekly basis using 12 plan view using a consisting of spatial- and
Mallasi (2006) execution patterns and dynamic 4D simulation schedule-related criteria,
three types of work rate environment calculated weekly for a given
distribution zone or workface
Moon et al. 4D CAD Not considered Not considered Sequential overlapping No Schedule overlapping ratio No
(2014a) check by pairwise (the ratio between the sum of
comparison of parallel overlapping durations of the
activities/physical conflicting activities and
workspace conflict check duration of the base activity)
using spatial 3D distance
calculation

04018056-3
Choi et al. 4D BIM Proposed concept referred to Specified on the basis of the Space occupancy check No Not considered No
(2014) as workspace occupation in construction method and during different time
order to consider workspace the activity and physical periods
dynamics properties
Kassem et al. 4D BIM Not considered Not considered Temporal conflict check No Severity of conflict (the ratio No
(2015)/Chavada in a sequential order for between the temporal overlap

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056

et al. (2012)
This current 4D BIM Workspace simulation on
research a daily basis using four
execution patterns and four
starting positions (16
execution alternatives)
Automatic assessment of
support platform space
requirement /automatic
generation of support
platform space
each activity/spatial
conflict detection using
3D object intersection
tests
Conflict detection based
on labor workspace and
support platform space
location and dimensions
on a daily basis
and the current activity
duration)/congestion severity
(the ratio between the volume
required for an activity
resources and the available
workspace volume for that
activity), calculated
regardless of the results of
spatial and temporal conflicts
Yes Conflict severity assessed Yes (the effect
using the minimum required of time space
space decrease (RSD), which conflict on project
accounts for both the area of performance is
conflict and labor congestion assessed)

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 Fig. 1. Impact of labor congestion and area of conflict on conflict se-
verity: (a) low severity conflict with a large conflict area between two
activities; and (b) high severity conflict with a small conflict area.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(Adapted from Chua et al. 2010.)
activity level and the operational level, respectively (Chua et al.
2010). This may lead to more accurate results in comparison with
the existing approaches. Finally, the effect of time–space conflicts
on labor productivity was quantified.
Research Methodology
In this section, the workspace type defined in this paper is clarified
by reviewing the workspace classifications presented in previous
studies. Next, the various types of conflict are explained on the
basis of the types of interfering workspaces and their impacts on
project performance. Then, the workspace definition and assign-
ment method are discussed in detail, with a focus on the workspace
dynamics. Finally, the proposed method for the quantification of
conflict impacts on project performance is demonstrated.
Workspace Classification
The majority of spaces required in building construction that affect
activity scheduling are directly required for activity execution and
are normally in the proximity of building components (Akinci et al.
2002b; Choi et al. 2014). These spaces include the labor crew
workspace, equipment space, hazard space, product space, tempo-
rary structure space, and material storage space. The support plat-
form space is also included because in some cases, the labor
workspace is provided by the support platform. The support plat-
forms occupy a specific amount of space, which in some cases may
interfere with other types of spaces and significantly impact the
activities performance. Considering the varied nature of activities,
the labor workspace can be classified as dynamic or static.
Conflict Classification
Workspaces are dynamic when the labor crew occupies a specific
portion of the space during each time interval and are static when
the entire workspace is required throughout the activity duration
(Fig. 2).
Time–space conflicts can have different impacts, depending on
the type of interfering activities. The determination of the conflict
impact depends on various factors such as the activity type, utilized
resources, construction method, and project circumstances. In pre-
vious research, there has been a lack of a standard framework for
classifying the impact of time–space conflicts, and general terms
such as design conflicts, congestion, safety, damage, and construct-
ability have been mentioned as the impacts of conflicts (Riley and
Sanvido 1997; Akinci et al. 2002c; Dawood and Mallasi 2006;
Chua et al. 2010; Wu and Chiu 2010). In the current study, three
© ASCE 04018056-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056
Fig. 2. Dynamic against the static workspace.
types of conflict are defined: conflict between two labor workspa-
ces, conflict between a labor workspace and a support platform
space, and conflict between two support platform spaces. The con-
flict between two labor workspaces and the conflict between a labor
workspace and a support platform space result in an increase in
labor congestion. In both cases, if congestion is increased beyond
a specific threshold value, constructability issues occur. The con-
flict between two support platform spaces may also result in con-
structability issues.
Labor Workspace Definition and Generation
In this research, the labor workspace was defined on the basis of the
dimensions and location of the three-dimensional (3D) elements
using the axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) concept, and the re-
quired labor workspace was directly assigned to elements in the 3D
model. To define the labor workspace based on element features in
the product model, three parameters were defined: the labor work-
space orientation relative to its corresponding element in the 4D
model, the scale factor, and the extension value. The orientation
is the quantitative definition of the labor workspace location rela-
tive to the corresponding element. The corresponding element
is referred to the element that is assigned to the activity in the
4D model. Workspace is assigned to an activity considering the
corresponding element location and dimension. In this study, six
different labor workspace orientations were defined to specify
the workspace location relative to the element (Fig. 3). Therefore,
the user can define the workspace location considering the element
type as well as the desired construction method. Scale factors Sa
and Sb determine the labor workspace length and width, respec-
tively, relative to the element dimensions [Fig. 4(a)].
Finally, the extension value defines the depth of the required
workspace [Fig. 4(b)]. The labor workspace is defined when its
dimensions and absolute coordinates relative to the model origin
are determined. Workspace dimensions and absolute coordinates
are specified through the element dimensions, origin coordinates
(derived from the 3D model), and the three parameters orientation,
scale factors, and extension value. The mentioned process is con-
ceivable through calculation of Δx, Δy, and Δz (the distance be-
tween the space minimum point and the element minimum point in
the x-, y-, and z-axes) using the transition-matrix mechanism.
Workspace Dynamics
In static workspaces, the labor crew occupies the entire activity
workspace throughout its duration. In many cases, however, the en-
tire labor workspace assigned to an activity is not used throughout
the activity duration. In this case, the labor crew moves from one
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

Up
Down
Right
Left
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Forward
Back
Fig. 3. Different possible labor workspace orientations relative to
element.
part of the workspace to another part by following a particular
movement (execution) pattern until the activity has been completed.
In the proposed approach, for activities with dynamic workspaces,
the labor crew works in a specific part of the entire workspace each
day. The activity workspace demand rate is not usually constant dur-
ing its execution and depends on the resources assigned to the ac-
tivity. However, with a slight approximation, it can be assumed that
the workspace demand rate is constant throughout the activity du-
ration (Thabet and Beliveau 1994).
In this study, the daily work executed by the labor crew was
considered to be a fixed amount. The labor workspace was there-
fore divided into equal subspaces. For this purpose, the number of
columns (Cols) and number of rows (Rows) were defined; they re-
fer to the plane divisions in the length and width axes. The numbers
of columns and rows may differ on the basis of the activity execu-
tion method. As an example, Fig. 5 shows four possible workspace
Fig. 4. Using scale factor and extension value to define labor workspace: (a) scale factor; and (b) extension value.
6 columns 1 column
1 row 6 rows
Fig. 5. Four possible workspace divisions for a 6-day-long activity.
© ASCE 04018056-5
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056
divisions for a 6-day-long activity. The type of workspace division
is selected on the basis of the planned execution method.
As shown in Fig. 6, to simulate labor movement through the
subspaces, four execution patterns were defined and implemented:
Column, Row, ColumnContinuous, and RowContinuous. Labor
movement was simulated in two dimensions (the xy-, xz-, and
yz-planes) considering the location of labor workspace with respect
to the element. In the Column pattern, the labor crew moves through
the columns, and when the labor crew arrives at the end of the col-
umn, the operation is continued from the beginning of the next col-
umn. In the Row pattern, the labor crew moves through rows, and
when the labor crew arrives at the end of a row, the operation is
continued from the beginning of the next row. The ColumnContin-
uous and RowContinuous patterns are the same as the Column and
Row patterns, except that when the end of a column or row is
reached, the movement continues from the end of the next column
or row. If the plane consists of a single row or column, all the ex-
ecution patterns have the same result.
Another workspace dynamics parameter is the movement start-
ing position. One of the four corners of the plane can be specified
as the starting position (TopRight, TopLeft, DownRight, and
DownLeft), which along with the four execution patterns create
16 execution alternatives. By default, the proposed model considers
the subspace with the minimum coordinates as the starting position
(Col: 0; and Row: 0). If any other position is chosen, the starting
position is transferred to the desired position using the origin tran-
sition mechanism. Finally, the number of time–space conflicts and
their severity can be assessed for various construction scenarios
through the 16 execution alternatives. As a result, the project man-
agers and planners are able to perform what-if analysis, and the
optimum execution scenario with the minimum number of time–
space conflicts can be selected.
Support Platform Space
If the labor workspace height exceeds a threshold value, the labor
crew will require a support platform for execution of the work.
Therefore, the support platform requirement is dependent on the
labor workspace position. In this research, the support platform
3 columns 2 columns
2 rows 3 rows
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Different execution (movement) patterns: (a) Column; (b) Row; (c) ColumnContinuous; and (d) RowContinuous.

Fig. 7. Support platform space: (a) the maximum height of labor workspace relative to the floor is more than 2 m; and (b) the maximum height of
labor workspace relative to the floor is equal to or less than 2 m.

requirement evaluation and its generation were performed auto-
matically. The support platform requirement is evaluated, taking
into account the maximum height of the labor workspace by con-
sidering the activity labor workspace location during each time in-
terval. It is assumed that if the height of the labor workspace
exceeds 2 m, a support platform will be required. If the support
platform requirement is confirmed, the upper 2 m of the workspace
is considered to be labor workspace and the rest of it is accounted as
support platform space [Fig. 7(a)]. If the height of the labor work-
space is less than 2 m, the labor workspace height is extended to the
floor [Fig. 7(b)].
Conflict Detection
Time–space conflicts occur when the workspaces of two or more
overlapping activities physically interfere. For conflict detection,
the activities with the temporal overlap are first identified. The
identified activities are then checked for physical interference.
In the proposed approach, the physical interference between the
assigned workspaces is detected on a daily basis. The dynamic de-
tection of conflicts is performed considering the labor movements
in the workspace. The daily situation of the labor workspace and
the support platform space is therefore taken into account. Similarly
to most previous studies, the AABB intersection test is used for
conflict detection. In this test, two conditions are checked in each
direction to confirm a conflict occurrence. Fig. 8 indicates the
physical conflict between two workspaces (A and B). Two condi-
tions are checked in each axis to confirm the conflict between
the two rectangles. The first condition is that the left edge of
rectangle B comes before the right edge of rectangle A [XminðAÞ þ
LðAÞ > XminðBÞ]. This condition is not sufficient because rectan-
gle B could be placed before rectangle A. Therefore, a second con-
dition is required, that is, the right edge of rectangle B needs to
come after the left edge of rectangle A [XminðAÞ < XminðBÞ þ
LðBÞ]. The same conditions need to be checked on the y-axis.
If both conditions are confirmed on both axes, the conflict is con-
firmed. For cubes, the conditions need to be assessed for the z-axis
as well as the x- and y-axes.
Conflict Quantification
Reliable conflict prioritization in terms of the level of criticality
requires accurate time–space conflict severity assessment and valid
conflict detection. In this study, the conflict severity is calculated

© ASCE 04018056-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Physical conflict between two workspaces (A and B).
using a new approach that accounts for the ratio between the con-
flict space size and the required workspace size and also for labor
congestion (Fig. 1). Hence, the space overlap and utilization
need are taken into account for conflict assessment at the activity
level and the operational level, respectively (Chua et al. 2010).
Finally, the effect of time–space conflicts on labor productivity is
quantified.
It is noteworthy that in this research, congestion was used as an
additional factor in assessing conflict severity, because a decrease
in the space required per person results in a labor productivity re-
duction (Sanders and Thomas 1991; Kaming et al. 1997; Mallasi
and Dawood 2001). Congestion was measured through the ratio
between the available workspace per person and the minimum
workspace required per person. The workspace required per person
for activity execution was considered to be the baseline workspace
or the minimum workspace required per person (R.W). In previous
research, various numbers were suggested as the minimum work-
space required per person for building construction activities
(Kaming et al. 1997; Smith 1987; Winch and North 2006; Thomas
and Smith 1990; Horner and Talhouni 1995; Thomas and Riley
2006). The minimum workspace required per person is affected
by various factors such as project type, activity type, and activity
construction method. In this research, the minimum workspace re-
quired per person was determined as an input variable by the user.
The conflict severity was calculated using Eqs. (3)–(8). The inter-
ference dimensions (x, y) between two interfering activities were
calculated on the basis of the intersection test concept. The conflict
length and conflict width were calculated through Eqs. (1) and (2),
respectively
X AB ¼ jMinfXmaxðAÞ; XmaxðBÞg − MaxfXminðAÞ; XminðBÞgj
ð1Þ
Y AB ¼ jMinfYmaxðAÞ; YmaxðBÞg − MaxfYminðAÞ; YminðBÞgj
ð2Þ
where X min A and X min B = left edge of rectangles A and B; and
X maxA and X maxB = right edge of rectangles A and B.
On the basis of the calculated interface dimensions, the conflict
area (AreaAB ) should be calculated using Eq. (3). If the available
workspace per person (A.W) becomes less than the minimum
© ASCE 04018056-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056
(a)
(b) (c)
Fig. 9. Different impacts of various ratios between R:W A and R:W B
on labor congestion of interfering activities: (a) the conflict between
two activities is demonstrated; two rectangles illustrate activity A in
two conditions; (b) when R:W B =R:W A is equal to 1; and (c) when
R:W B =R:W A is greater than 1.
workspace required, the labor productivity will decrease accord-
ingly. In the case of conflict between two activities (activity A
and activity B), the number of workers in the activity A workspace
(HAB ) is calculated using Eq. (4). As shown, the number of workers
in the activity A workspace before the conflict (H A ) is added to a
fraction of the number of workers in the interfering activity (in this
case, activity B) workspace (HB ). This fraction is the ratio between
the conflict area (AreaAB ) and the interfering activity area (AreaB ).
Because the minimum workspace required by the two activities
(R:W A and R:W B ) might be different, the ratio between them is
also considered in the equation. As shown in Fig. 9, different ratios
between the minimum workspace required for the two interfering
activities can influence the labor congestion differently. As shown
in the lower part of Fig. 9, two rectangles depict activity A in two
conditions: (1) when R:W B =R:W A is equal to 1, and (2) when
R:W B =R:W A is greater than 1.
In this research, it is assumed that the labor crew is distributed
uniformly in the workspace. The available workspace for activity A
(A:W A ) is calculated using Eq. (5). The decrease in workspace per
person for activity A (RSDA ) is determined through Eq. (6). In the
case that a labor workspace and a support platform space interfere,
the conflict area is subtracted from the primary labor workspace
area to calculate the remaining labor workspace area (AreaA0 )
[Eq. (7)]. Finally, in this type of conflict the available workspace
per person in the remaining area is calculated using Eq. (8).
In this study, the relation between the required space decrease
(RSD) and the labor productivity reduction for an activity was con-
sidered to be linear. If the labor workspace per person was reduced
by more than 50%, it was considered a constructability problem. In
other words, it was concluded that the conflicted activities could
not be executed concurrently. The conflict between two support
platform spaces might also lead to a constructability problem for
both corresponding activities
AreaAB ¼ X AB × Y AB ð3Þ
where AreaAB = conflict area; and X AB and Y AB = interference
dimensions between two interfering activities
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 HAB ¼ HA þ fðAreaAB =AreaB Þ × H B × ðRB =RA Þg ð4Þ
where HAB = number of workers in the activity A workspace; H A =
number of workers in the activity A workspace before the conflict;
H B = number of workers in the interfering activity (activity B)
workspace; AreaAB = conflict area; and AreaB = interfering activity
area
A:W A ¼ AreaA =HAB ð5Þ
where A:W = available workspace per person; and A:W A =
available workspace for activity A
RSDA ¼ f1 − ðA:W A =R:W A Þg ð6Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where RSDA = decrease in workspace per person for activity A; and
R:W A = minimum workspace required by activity A
AreaA0 ¼ AreaA − AreaAB ð7Þ
A:W A ¼ AreaA0 =H A ð8Þ
where AreaA0 = remaining labor workspace area.
Dynamic Conflict Detection and Quantification
System
System Architecture
The proposed approach was implemented using the C# program-
ming language in the .NET framework in a Visual Studio environ-
ment. As shown in Fig. 10, the proposed dynamic conflict detection
and quantification system consisted of four main modules: inputs,
preprocess, main process, and outputs. The project temporal and
spatial data that were derived from the project schedule and
the 3D model, respectively, in the .XML and .IFC formats were
the system inputs. The temporal data obtained from the MSP sched-
uling software included the activity name, the work breakdown
structure (WBS) code, the activity start and finish dates, the number
of workers (H), and the minimum workspace required (R.W). The
element name, length, width, height, and origin point coordinates
were obtained from the 3D modeling software as spatial inputs. The
use of the .IFC format, which is an information model for required
data in the construction industry, facilitated the data exchange
among various BIM platforms and provided the proper flexibility
in 3D model generation using BIM-supported platforms.
In the preprocess module, which directly interacts with the user
through a graphical user interface (GUI), the 4D model is first gen-
erated by linking activities to their corresponding elements. Each
WBS code in the 4D model is a unique ID acting as a data center.
Then, the space-loaded 4D model is generated as a 4D model con-
sisting of the activities workspace temporal and spatial information.
For this purpose, the required parameters for labor workspace def-
inition and generation are determined by the user; these include the
orientation, Sa and Sb , and extension value. Therefore, the work-
space dimensions and its absolute coordinates are specified. Also,
in the preprocess module, the labor movement is simulated using
the workspace dynamics parameters, which are determined by the
user; these include the execution patterns, number of columns,
number of rows, and starting position. Eventually, the support plat-
form requirement is automatically analyzed through an internal al-
gorithm considering the maximum labor workspace height. In the
case that the support platform is required, the space occupied by the
support platform is generated.
© ASCE 04018056-8
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056
In the main process, the time period between the earliest start
date and the latest finish date is determined for all activities, and the
physical conflict between the assigned workspaces is investigated
through a daily conflict detection simulation algorithm. The con-
flict detection is performed considering the labor workspace loca-
tion change and the change in the support platform requirement. In
the conflict impact determination and quantification section, the
conflict influence on the involved activities is determined using
the conflict classification and the conflict severity quantification
approach presented in the previous sections.
In the last module, a conflicts table is produced that includes the
conflict features such as its type, dimensions, location, conflicting
activities WBS code, labor productivity reduction, and probable
constructability problems.
Tool Evaluation
In order to evaluate its performance, the proposed dynamic conflict
detection and quantification system was implemented on a sports
complex project to detect the major time–space conflicts and quan-
tify their impacts on the project performance. The gross floor area
of this building was 1,700 m2 . The initial duration and cost of the
project was approximated as $4,800,000 and 14 months, respec-
tively. Fig. 11(a) shows the 3D model of the sports complex project.
In this section, the implementation results are provided for one of
the time–space conflicts detected among three activities: flooring,
wall finishing, and window installation. Figs. 11(b and c) represent
the horizontal section of the project in which the detected time–
space conflict was specified.
In the inputs module, the project temporal and spatial data de-
rived from the project schedule and the 3D model, respectively, in
the .XML and .IFC formats are defined. The temporal data, includ-
ing the activities name, WBS code, start and finish dates, number of
workers (H), and minimum workspace required per person (R) in
square meters, are derived from the scheduling platform or through
the graphical interface of the proposed system. The spatial inputs,
including the element name, length, width, height, and origin point
coordinates, are obtained from the 3D modeling software. The 3D
model consists of three objects: floor, wall, and window. The di-
mensions and location of these elements can be extracted with re-
spect to the model origin. In the preprocess module, to generate the
4D model, the .XML and .IFC files derived from the scheduling
and 3D modeling platforms are called up through Load Activities
and Load Elements. Therefore, the activities and elements informa-
tion is imported into the system. Fig. 12 shows the designed GUI to
generate the 4D model. It is noteworthy that more elements and
activities can be defined through the plus (+) icon. Then, pairwise
linking of the activities and elements is performed when they are
positioned in the same row, for the purpose of 4D model genera-
tion. To this end, the drag-and-drop function can be used in both the
activities and elements columns.
After the generation of the 4D model, the labor-required work-
space is defined in the Workspaces column by determining four
parameters: orientation, Sx , Sy , and Extension (Fig. 12). A transition
matrix is then used to generate the primary labor workspace on the
basis of the specified parameters. Fig. 13 shows the generated work-
spaces for three activities: flooring, wall finishing, and window
installation.
The workspace dynamics are specified in the Motions column
through four parameters: Patterns, Cols, Rows, and start position
(Fig. 12). It is noteworthy that in this project case example, the win-
dow installation is considered static and the other two activities
(flooring and wall finishing) are considered dynamic. Window instal-
lation is considered static because the labor crew occupies the entire
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Activity name
WBS Code
Start/Finish dates name
Number of labors length, width,
Minimum required height
space per person origin coordinates
(R)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Number of
Orientation
columns
Length offset
Number of rows
Width offset
Execution pattern
Extension value
Starting position

Fig. 10. System architecture.

assigned workspace during its 1-day execution. The flooring activity One of the six parts is therefore occupied by the labor crew in each
is scheduled to be executed in 6 days. On the basis of the assumption day. The six parts can be divided into different forms: six columns
that the work has a uniform distribution throughout the activity du- and one row, three columns and two rows, and vice versa. The type
ration, its workspace is divided into six parts (Cols: 3; and Rows: 2). of workspace division (numbers of columns and rows) is specified on

© ASCE 04018056-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Studied sports complex project: (a) 3D model of the project; and (b and c) the horizontal sections of the project and the detected time-space
conflict.

Fig. 12. 4D model generation through the designed graphical user interface: labor workspace definition and determination of workspace dynamics.

the basis of the activity execution method. For the flooring activity, The wall finishing workspace is divided into three equal parts
the six parts of the activity are divided into three columns and two (Cols: 1; and Rows: 3). The execution pattern for this activity is
rows. The execution pattern is determined to be RowContinuous, and specified to be Column, and the movement starting position is con-
the starting position is determined to be DownRight (Fig. 14). sidered to be TopLeft, because wall finishing is usually done from

© ASCE 04018056-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056

 Fig. 13. Graphical representation of the primarily generated labor workspace for the activities (a) flooring; (b) window installation; and (c) wall
finishing.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Flooring activity workspace dynamics: (a) the flooring activity workspace division into six equal parts; and (b) the execution pattern
(RowContinuous) and starting point (DownRight).

top to bottom. It is noteworthy that the parameter values of all four
sections (elements, activities, workspaces, and motions) can be
edited by the user in the properties section of the proposed dynamic
conflict detection and quantification system. After determination of
the daily location of the labor workspaces, the support platform
requirement is assessed automatically. For this purpose, the maxi-
mum labor workspace height is inspected each day. For the flooring
activity, the workspace maximum height is 2 m and is constant
throughout the activity duration. Therefore, no support platform
is required for this activity. The maximum height of the wall fin-
ishing subspace on the first day of its execution and the window
installation workspace are more than 2 m; consequently, the sup-
port platform is required and the corresponding support platform
spaces are generated. After evaluation of the support platform re-
quirement and generation of its space, a space-loaded 4D informa-
tion model is created through which the time–space conflicts can be
identified. The conflict detection and quantification are then carried
out automatically.
In the studied project, the flooring activity labor workspace
conflicted with the wall finishing labor workspace and its support
platform space on the third day. Following simple logic, in this
condition the conflict between the two labor workspaces was
ignored. After a quantitative assessment of the conflict severity, it
was shown that the conflict between the flooring activity labor
workspace and the wall finishing activity support platform space
would reduce the productivity of the flooring activity by 97%.
Therefore, a constructability problem for the interfering activities
was conceived. On the fourth day, three other conflicts were de-
tected using the proposed dynamic conflict detection and quanti-
fication system, as follows. A labor/support platform conflict was
detected between the flooring and window installation activities.
This conflict would cause a 73% decrease in the productivity of the
wall finishing activity. The second conflict was detected between the
flooring and wall finishing activities. This conflict was between
the two labor workspaces and would decrease the productivity of the
flooring and wall finishing activities by 74 and 63%, respectively.
The third conflict was detected between the wall finishing activity
and the window installation activity support platform space. The
labor productivity due to this conflict was decreased by 22%. As
the productivity decrease was below the specified limit of 50%, no
constructability problem was detected owing to this conflict. The
output table shown in Fig. 15 represents the conflicts’ dimensions,
location, type, WBS code of the involved activities, labor produc-
tivity reduction due to each conflict, and constructability problems.
It is noteworthy that the developed dynamic conflict detection
and quantification system has the ability to perform what-if analy-
sis for different execution scenarios. The severity and number of the
time–space conflicts can be evaluated for different execution sce-
narios by changing the parameters such as the execution pattern,
starting position, and number of workers. Hence, the optimum ex-
ecution scenario can be selected taking into account the number of
conflicts and their severity.
For instance, if the flooring activity execution pattern changed
from RowContinuous to Row, the conflict between the flooring and

© ASCE 04018056-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. (a) The output table of the proposed dynamic conflict detection and quantification system; and (b) the graphical representation of daily
situation of workspaces and the identified conflicts.

Fig. 16. Output table of conflicts detection and quantification system: (a) change the flooring activity execution pattern from RowContinuous to Row;
and (b) change the flooring activity execution pattern to ColumnContinuous and starting position to DownLeft.

wall finishing activities labor workspaces on the fourth day would
be eliminated [Fig. 16(a)]. As another alternative, if the flooring
activity execution pattern changed to ColumnContinuous and its
starting position changed to DownLeft, the only conflict would
be between the wall finishing activity labor workspace and the win-
dow installation activity support platform space on the fourth day.
This would decrease the labor productivity by 22% and would not
lead to a constructability problem [Fig. 16(b)].
One of the common methods of resource leveling is increasing
the activities duration using their available floats, through which
the number of required resources in each time span is balanced.
A similar approach can be used to reduce the number of potential
time–space conflicts in the project schedule. In the following, the
capability of the proposed approach in this area is clarified and a
what-if analysis is conducted considering the activities duration
and the number of assigned labor. As the last strategy, the duration
of the interfering activities can be increased to reduce the time–space
conflicts. Increasing the duration of the conflicting activities by using
their available floats can reduce the number of resources in different
time spans, which may decrease the severity of conflicts. In the case
that the flooring activity duration is increased from 6 to 8 days, the
number of workers is reduced from 6 to 5 to achieve the required
man-hours for execution of this activity. Therefore, improvements
can be made in the number of detected conflicts (Fig. 17). In this
scenario, the third- and fourth day conflicts between the flooring
and window installation activities are eliminated. However, a new
conflict between the flooring and wall finishing activities labor work-
spaces is detected. The new conflict reduces labor productivity in the
flooring and wall finishing activities by 78 and 65%, respectively.
Conclusions and Remarks
In this research, a dynamic 4D-BIM–based approach was devel-
oped to detect time–space conflicts and quantify their impacts
considering labor crew movements. In this study, primarily a
4D-BIM model was generated by linking the schedule information
to the 3D model information. This link was made through a GUI,

© ASCE 04018056-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056

 Fig. 17. Conflicts detected due to increase in the flooring activity duration from 6 to 8 days.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and each activity was assigned to its corresponding 3D element.
After generation of the 4D model, the required workspace to
execute each activity was generated and assigned automatically.
The labor workspace for each activity was determined through
the location and dimension of the corresponding element in the
4D model. Four parameters (orientation, length offset, width offset,
and extension value) were defined to automatically generate and
assign the workspace. Using an automatic internal algorithm, the
need for a support platform was assessed, and the required space
was automatically generated and assigned. The labor crew move-
ment in each time interval was taken into account using two param-
eters (the starting position and execution pattern). For this purpose,
four starting positions and four execution patterns (Row, Column,
RowContinuous, and ColumnContinuous) were defined. The num-
ber of conflicts and their severity in each execution pattern were
assessed automatically using the developed 4D model. The conflict
severity was calculated using a new approach that accounted for
labor congestion as well as the conflict area. Therefore, a more real-
istic and reliable value for the conflict severity could be conceived.
Using the proposed 4D-BIM approach, the number of conflicts and
their severity can be assessed automatically in different execution
patterns, and the best execution pattern could be selected consid-
ering the simulation results.
In order to evaluate the performance of the proposed dynamic
conflict detection and quantification system, it was implemented
on a real building project. The proposed approach was implemented
using the C# programming language in the .NET framework in a
Visual Studio environment. Using the developed 4D information
model, the time–space conflicts were first detected considering
the labor crew movement in the assigned workspace during various
time intervals. Then, the effect of the time–space conflicts was quan-
tified, and the value of the productivity losses was determined.
Finally, a what-if analysis was carried out for different execution
scenarios. The severity and number of the time–space conflicts were
evaluated for different execution scenarios by changing the following
parameters: the execution pattern, the starting position, and the num-
ber of workers. The optimum execution scenario was selected taking
into account the number of conflicts and their severity.
In the following, the novel aspects of this research are reviewed
briefly.
• A novel 4D-BIM dynamic conflict detection and quantification
system was presented. Using the proposed approach, conflict
detection can be performed more accurately, and a more precise
value for conflict severity is achieved.
• The conflicts between different activities workspaces were iden-
tified considering labor crew movement in the assigned work-
space during different time intervals.
• The support platform requirement was automatically evaluated
considering the location of the labor crew during each time
interval. If a support platform is required, the space occupied
by it is automatically defined and generated.
© ASCE 04018056-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056
• The time–space conflicts were detected through a 4D model,
and the conflicts severity was calculated using a new approach
accounting for the conflict space size and labor congestion in
each activity workspace.
• The effect of time–space conflicts on labor productivity was
quantified.
• A what-if analysis was carried out for various execution scenar-
ios to select the optimum scenario taking into account the num-
ber of conflicts and their severity.
Future Studies
Although the current research resolved some of the major short-
comings of previous studies in the area of conflict detection and
quantification, gaps still exist.
The labor crew 3D movement simulation (the simultaneous
movement of labor along the x-, y-, and z-axes) for activities such
as concrete work on inclined surfaces may be considered remark-
able progress in time–space conflict detection using 4D models.
Future research needs to focus on the optimization of the time–
space conflicts in the project schedule with regard to the number
and severity of the detected conflicts. Consequently, more realistic
schedules may be generated.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s
data sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10
.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001263.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
AreaA0 = remaining labor workspace area;
AreaAB = conflict area between activities A and B;
AreaB = interfering activity area;
A:W A = available workspace for activity A;
H A = number of workers in activity A workspace
before conflict;
H AB = number of workers in activity A workspace after
conflict;
HB = number of workers in the interfering activity
(activity B) workspace;
RSDA = decrease in workspace per person for activity A;
R:W A = minimum workspace required by activity A; and
X AB and Y AB = interference dimensions between activities A
and B.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 References
Akinci, B., M. Fischer, and J. Kunz. 2002a. “Automated generation of work
spaces required by construction activities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
128 (4): 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)
128:4(306).
Akinci, B., M. Fischer, J. Kunz, and R. Levitt. 2002b. “Representing
work spaces generically in construction method models.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 128 (4): 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2002)128:4(296).
Akinci, B., M. Fischer, R. Levitt, and R. Carlson. 2002c. “Formalization
and automation of time-space conflict analysis.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
16 (2): 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2002)16:
2(124).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 10/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Chavada, R., N. Dawood, and M. Kassem. 2012. “Construction workspace
management: The development and application of a novel nD planning
approach and tool.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 17: 213–236.
Choi, B., H. Lee, M. Park, Y. Cho, and H. Kim. 2014. “Framework for
work-space planning using four-dimensional BIM in construction proj-
ects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (9): 04014041. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000885,9(140).
Chua, D., K. Yeoh, and Y. Song. 2010. “Quantification of spatial temporal
congestion in four-dimensional computer-aided design.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 136 (6): 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000166.
Dawood, N., and Z. Mallasi. 2006. “Construction workspace planning:
Assignment and analysis utilizing 4D visualization technologies.”
Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 21 (7): 498–513. https://doi.org
/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2006.00454.x.
Eastman, C., P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, and K. Liston. 2011. BIM handbook:
A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers,
designers, engineers and contractors. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gunduz, M. 2004. “A quantitative approach for evaluation of negative
impact of overmanning on electrical and mechanical projects.” Build.
Environ. 39 (5): 581–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.11
.006.
Guo, S. J. 2002. “Identification and resolution of work space conflicts in
building construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 128 (4): 287–295.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:4(287).
Horner, R. M. W., and B. T. Talhouni. 1995. Effects of accelerated working,
delays and disruption on labour productivity. Bracknell, UK: The
Chartered Institute of Building.
Kaming, P. F., P. O. Olomolaiye, G. D. Holt, and F. C. Harris. 1997.
“Factors influencing craftsmen’s productivity in Indonesia.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 15 (1): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863
(96)00019-1.
Kassem, M., N. Dawood, and R. Chavada. 2015. “Construction workspace
management within an Industry Foundation Class-compliant 4D tool.”
Autom. Constr. 52: 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.02
.008.
Koo, B., and M. Fischer. 2000. “Feasibility study of 4D CAD in commer-
cial construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 126 (4): 251–260. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:4(251).
Ma, Z., Q. Shen, and J. Zhang. 2005. “Application of 4D for dynamic
site layout and management of construction projects.” Autom. Constr.
14 (3): 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.08.011.
Mallasi, Z. 2006. “Dynamic quantification and analysis of the construc-
tion workspace congestion utilising 4D visualisation.” Autom. Constr.
15 (5): 640–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2005.08.005.
© ASCE 04018056-14
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(7): 04018056
Mallasi, Z., and N. Dawood. 2001. “Assessing space criticality in sequenc-
ing and identifying execution patterns for construction activities using
VR visualisations.” In Proc., ARCOM Doctoral Research Workshop:
Simulation and Modelling in Construction, 22–27. Edinburgh, Scot-
land: Edinburgh Univ.
McKinney, K., and M. Fischer. 1998. “Generating, evaluating and visual-
izing construction schedules with CAD tools.” Autom. Constr. 7 (6):
433–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(98)00053-3.
Moon, H., N. Dawood, and L. Kang. 2014a. “Development of workspace
conflict visualization system using 4D object of work schedule.” Adv.
Eng. Inf. 28 (1): 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2013.12.001.
Moon, H., H. Kim, C. Kim, and L. Kang. 2014b. “Development of a
schedule-workspace interference management system simultaneously
considering the overlap level of parallel schedules and workspaces.”
Autom. Constr. 39 (1): 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013
.06.001.
Project Management Institute. 2013. A guide to the project management
body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide). 5th ed. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Riley, D. R., and V. E. Sanvido. 1995. “Patterns of construction-space use
in multistory buildings.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 121 (4): 464–473.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:4(464).
Riley, D. R., and V. E. Sanvido. 1997. “Space planning method for multi-
story building construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 123 (2): 171–180.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:2(171).
Sanders, S. R., and H. R. Thomas. 1991. “Factors affecting masonry-labor
productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 117 (4): 626–644. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1991)117:4(626).
Smith, D. M. 1987. “An investigation of the space constraint problem in
construction planning.” Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ.
Su, X., and H. Cai. 2014. “Life cycle approach to construction workspace
modeling and planning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 7 (7): 04014019.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000855.
Thabet, W. Y., and Y. J. Beliveau. 1994. “Modeling work space to sched-
ule repetitive floors in multistory building.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
120 (1): 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:
1(96).
Thomas, H. R., and D. R. Riley. 2006. “Fundamental principles for avoid-
ing congested work areas: A case study.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des.
Constr. 11 (4): 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680
(2006)11:4(197).
Thomas, H. R., Jr., and G. R. Smith. 1990. Loss of construction labor pro-
ductivity due to inefficiencies and disruptions: The weight of expert
opinion. PTI Rep. No. 9019. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State
Univ.
Tommelein, I. D., R. J. Dzeng, and P. P. Zouein. 1993. “Exchanging layout
and schedule data in a real-time distributed environment.” In Proc., 5th
Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, 947–954.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Wang, H. J., J. P. Zhang, K. W. Chau, and M. Anson. 2004. “4D dynamic
management for construction planning and resource utilization.” Autom.
Constr. 13 (5): 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.04.003.
Winch, G., and S. North. 2006. “Critical space analysis.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 132 (5): 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2006)132:5(473).
Wu, I., and Y. Chiu. 2010. “4D workspace conflict detection and analysis
system.” In Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Construction Applications of
Virtual Reality. Middlesbrough, UK: Teesside Univ.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.