Selecting deconstruction processes using virtual reality comparisons
), Abstract
Grand challenges such as achieving sustainability goals and managing aging infrastructure are creating an unprecedented demand for deconstruction. However, deconstructing aging infrastructure is inherently risky, repetitive, and costly, necessitating effective project planning. Virtual reality (VR) technology offers the potential for planners to improve deconstruction project risk, time, safety, and cost. We propose that planners leverage VR early in the planning phase to compare alternative feasible tools and processes. Planners can create low-fidelity models of various deconstruction process alternatives and collect metrics on their suitability with VR-capable three-dimensional (3D) game engines. We present and formalize a methodology for conducting comparisons of candidate deconstruction processes by modeling candidates in VR, conducting trials, and collecting analytics data from the VR engine. We present a case study that demonstrates our approach to a cutting and waste packing process for nuclear power plant (NPP) decommissioning. As a novel contribution in this paper, we show that VR simulations can efficiently produce detailed insights useful for critically analyzing and comparing deconstruction process alternatives.
Keywords
References
B. Sanchez, C. Rausch, C. Haas. Deconstruction programming for adaptive reuse of buildings. Autom Constr, 2019, 107: 102921.
R. Volk, F. Hübner, T. Hünlich, et al. The future of nuclear decommissioning—A worldwide market potential study. Energy Policy, 2019, 124: 226–261.
M. Kassem, L. Benomran, J. Teizer. Virtual environments for safety learning in construction and engineering: Seeking evidence and identifying gaps for future research. Vis Eng, 2017, 5: 16.
B. V. Koen. Toward a definition of the engineering method. Eur J Eng Educ, 1988, 13: 307–315.
H. Abou-Ibrahim, F. Hamzeh, E. Zankoul, et al. Understanding the planner’s role in lookahead construction planning. Prod Plann Control, 2019, 30: 271–284.
W. F. Xu, B. Liang, Y. S. Xu. Survey of modeling, planning, and ground verification of space robotic systems. Acta Astronaut, 2011, 68: 1629–1649.
A. A. Muhammad, I. Yitmen, S. Alizadehsalehi, T. Celik. Adoption of virtual reality (VR) for site layout optimization of construction projects. Teknik Dergi, 2019, 31: 9833–9850.
S. You, J. H. Kim, S. Lee, et al. Enhancing perceived safety in human–robot collaborative construction using immersive virtual environments. Autom Constr, 2018, 96: 161–170.
J. M. Davila Delgado, L. Oyedele, T. Beach, et al. Augmented and virtual reality in construction: Drivers and limitations for industry adoption. J Constr Eng Manage, 2020, 146: 04020079.
R. Dias Barkokebas, M. Al-hussein, X. M. Li. VR–MOCAP-enabled ergonomic risk assessment of workstation prototypes in offsite construction. J Constr Eng Manage, 2022, 148: 04022064.
X. M. Li, S. Han, M. Gül, et al. 3D visualization-based ergonomic risk assessment and work modification framework and its validation for a lifting task. J Constr Eng Manage, 2018, 144: 04017093.
Y. X. Zhang, B. Xiao, M. Al-Hussein, et al. Prediction of human restorative experience for human-centered residential architecture design: A non-immersive VR–DOE-based machine learning method. Autom Constr, 2022, 136: 104189.
A. Ahmad, I. Yitmen, S. Alizadehsalehi, et al. Adoption of virtual reality (VR) for site layout optimization of construction projects. Tek Dergi, 2020, 31: 9833–9850.
M. Fakoor, S. M. N. Ghoreishi, H. Sabaghzadeh. Spacecraft component adaptive layout environment (SCALE): An efficient optimization tool. Adv Space Res, 2016, 58: 1654–1670.
J. Vanek, J. A. G. Galicia, B. Benes, et al. PackMerger: A 3D print volume optimizer. Comput Graphics Forum, 2014, 33: 322–332.
A. A. S. Leao, F. M. B. Toledo, J. F. Oliveira, et al. Irregular packing problems: A review of mathematical models. Eur J Oper Res, 2020, 282: 803–822.
L. J. P. Araújo, A. Panesar, E. Özcan, et al. An experimental analysis of deepest bottom-left-fill packing methods for additive manufacturing. Int J Prod Res, 2020, 58: 6917–6933.
A. Hertz, M. Widmer. Guidelines for the use of meta-heuristics in combinatorial optimization. Eur J Oper Res, 2003, 151: 247–252.
Y. H. Zhao, C. Rausch, C. Haas. Optimizing 3D irregular object packing from 3D scans using metaheuristics. Adv Eng Inf, 2021, 47: 101234.
A. S. Gogate, S. S. Pande. Intelligent layout planning for rapid prototyping. Int J Prod Res, 2008, 46: 5607–5631.
S. S. Shapiro, M. B. Wilk. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 1965, 52: 591–611.
B. L. Welch. On the comparison of several mean values: An alternative approach. Biometrika, 1951, 38: 330–336.
P. A. Games, J. F. Howell. Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal N’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. J Educ Stat, 1976, 1: 113–125.
G. Ballard, G. Howell. Shielding production: Essential step in production control. J Constr Eng Manage, 1998, 124: 11–17.
T. Romanova, J. Bennell, Y. Stoyan, et al. Packing of concave polyhedra with continuous rotations using nonlinear optimisation. Eur J Oper Res, 2018, 268: 37–53.
京公网安备11010802044758号