LOCATION OPTIMIZATION FOR A GROUP OF TOWER CRANES

By P. Zhang,1 F. C. Harris,2 P. O. Olomolaiye,3 and G. D. Holt4

ABSTRACT: A computerized model to optimize location of a group of tower cranes is presented. Location
criteria are balanced workload, minimum likelihood of conflicts with each other, and high efficiency of opera-
tions. Three submodels are also presented. First, the initial location model classifies tasks into groups and
identifies feasible location for each crane according to geometric ‘‘closeness.’’ Second, the former task groups
are adjusted to yield smooth workloads and minimal conflicts. Finally, a single-tower-crane optimization model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is applied crane by crane to search for optimal location in terms of minimal hook transportation time. Experi-
mental results and the steps necessary for implementation of the model are discussed.

INTRODUCTION use by practitioners. First, existing models tend to oversim-

On large construction projects several cranes generally un- plify and site conditions are not considered. Further, little at-
dertake transportation tasks, particularly when a single crane tempt has been made to model optimum location for a tower
cannot provide overall coverage of all demand and supply crane group. Therefore, it was first necessary to create a ‘‘more
points, and/or when its capacity is exceeded by the needs of realistic’’ model for crane location in which these factors are
a tight construction schedule. Many factors influence tower considered; then, to develop the model for locating a group of
crane location. In the interests of safety and efficient operation, tower cranes.
cranes should be located as far apart as possible to avoid in-
terference and collisions, on the condition that all planned Assumptions
tasks can be performed. However, this ideal situation is often Site managers were interviewed to identify their concerns
difficult to achieve in practice; constrained work space and and observe current approaches to the task at hand. Further,
limitations of crane capacity make it inevitable that crane areas operations were observed on 14 sites where cranes were in-
overlap. Subsequently, interference and collisions can occur tensively used (four in China, six in England, and four in Scot-
even if crane jibs work at different levels. Crane position(s) land). Time studies were carried out on four sites for six
tend to be determined through trial and error, based on site weeks, two sites for two weeks each, and two for one week
topography/shape and overall coverage of tasks. The alterna- each. Findings suggested inter alia that full coverage of work-
tives for crane location can be complex, so managers remain ing area, balanced workload with no interference, and ground
confronted by multiple choices and little quantitative refer- conditions are major considerations in determining group lo-
ence. cation. Therefore, efforts were concentrated on these factors
Crane location models have evolved over the past 20 years. (except ground conditions because site managers can specify
Warszawski (1973) established a time-distance formula by feasible location areas). The following four assumptions were
which quantitative evaluation of location was possible. Furu- applied to model development (detailed later):
saka and Gray (1984) presented a dynamic programming
model with the objective function being hire cost, but without 1. Geometric layout of all supply (S) and demand (D)
consideration of location. Gray and Little (1985) optimized points, together with the type and number of cranes, are
crane location in irregular-shaped buildings while Wijesundera predetermined.
and Harris (1986) designed a simulation model to reconstruct 2. For each S-D pair, demand levels for transportation are
operation times and equipment cycles when handling concrete. known, e.g., total number of lifts, number of lifts for
Farrell and Hover (1989) developed a database with a graph- each batch, maximum load, unloading delays, and so on.
ical interface to assist in crane selection and location. Choi 3. The duration of construction is broadly similar over the
and Harris (1991) introduced another model to optimize single working areas.
tower crane location by calculating total transportation times 4. The material transported between an S-D pair is handled
incurred. Emsley (1992) proposed several improvements to the by one crane only.
Choi and Harris model. Apart from these algorithmic ap-
proaches, rule-based systems have also evolved to assist de- MODEL DESCRIPTION
cisions on crane numbers and types as well as their site layout,
e.g., CRANES (Gray and Little 1985); LOCRANE (War- Three steps are involved in determining optimal positions
szawski 1990). for a crane group. First, a location generation model produces
The shortcomings of existing location models must be ad- an approximate task group for each crane. This is then adjusted
dressed to move them from the realms of research to regular by a task assignment model. Finally, an optimization model is
1
applied to each tower in turn to find an exact crane location
Doctoral Candidate, School of Engrg. and Built Envir., Univ. of Wol- for each task group.
verhampton, Wulfruna St., Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, U.K.
2
Prof. of Constr. Sci., School of Engrg. and Built Envir., Univ. of
Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, U.K. Initial Location Generation Model
3
Assoc. Dean, School of Engrg. and Built Envir., Univ. of Wolver-
hampton, Wolverhampton, U.K. Lift Capacity and ‘‘Feasible’’ Area
4
Reader in Constr. Mgmt., School of Engrg. and Built Envir., Univ. of
Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, U.K. E-mail: G.D.Holt@wlv.ac.uk Crane lift capacity is determined from a radius-load curve
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1999. To extend the closing where the greater the load, the smaller the crane’s operating
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager radius. Assuming a load at supply point (S) with the weight
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on February 12, 1996. This paper is part of the Jour-
w, its corresponding crane radius is r. A crane is therefore
nal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125, No. 2, unable to lift a load unless it is located within a circle with
March/April, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9634/99/0002-0115 – 0122/ radius r [Fig. 1(a)]. To deliver a load from (S) to demand point
$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 12203. (D), the crane has to be positioned within an elliptical area
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999 / 115

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.

 alternatives — such as cranes with greater lifting capacity or
replanning of site layout — are allowed. Similarly, three cranes
are required if there are three tasks in which any two have no
overlapping areas. Generally, tasks whose feasible areas are
isolated must be handled by separate cranes.
These initial tasks are assigned respectively to different
(crane) task groups as the first member of the group, then all
other tasks are clustered according to proximity to them. Ob-
viously, tasks furthest apart are given priority as initial tasks.
When multiple choices exist, computer running time can be
reduced by selecting tasks with smaller feasible areas as initial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tasks. The model provides assistance in this respect by dis-

playing graphical layout of tasks and a list of the size of fea-
FIG. 1. Feasible Area of Crane Location for Task sible area for each. After assigning an initial task to a group,
the model searches for the closest remaining task by checking
the size of overlapping area, then places it into the task group
to produce a new feasible area corresponding to the recently
generated task group. The process is repeated until there are
no tasks remaining having an overlapping area within the pres-
ent group. Thereafter, the model switches to search for the next
group from the pool of all tasks, the process being continued
until all task groups have been considered. If a task fails to
be assigned to a group, a message is produced to report which
tasks are left so the user can supply more cranes or, alterna-
tively, change the task layout and run the model again.

Initial Crane Location

When task groups have been created, overlapping areas can
be formed. Thus, the initial locations are automatically at the
geometric centers of the common feasible areas, or anywhere
specified by the user within common feasible areas.

Task Assignment Model

FIG. 2. Task ‘‘Closeness’’ Group location is determined by geometric ‘‘closeness.’’
However, one crane might be overburdened while others are
enclosed by two circles, shown in Fig. 1(b). This is called the idle. Furthermore, cranes can often interfere with each other
feasible task area. The size of the area is related to the distance so task assignment is applied to those tasks that can be reached
between S and D, the weight of the load, and crane capacity. by more than one crane to minimize these possibilities.
The larger the feasible area, the more easily the task can be
handled. Accessibility Matrix
At this stage, it is assumed that all cranes are located at their
Measurement of ‘‘Closeness’’ of Tasks
respective initial locations. The accessibility matrix in Table 1
Three geometric relationships exist for any two feasible task is then used to explicate the accessibility of each crane to its
areas, as illustrated in Fig. 2; namely, (a) one fully enclosed associated tasks, in which ␦ij is a binary variable, defined as
by another (tasks 1 and 2); (b) two areas partly intersected
(tasks 1 and 3); and (c) two areas separated (tasks 2 and 3).
As indicated in cases (a) and (b), by being located in area A,
␦ij = 再 1 if crane i is able to handle job j
0 otherwise
a crane can handle both tasks 1 and 2, and similarly, within Clearly, the task assignments are further required to apply for
B, tasks 1 and 3. However, case (c) shows that tasks 2 and 3 those reachable by more than one crane, i.e., for any j 僆 J̃ =
are so far from each other that a single tower crane is unable { j: 兺Ii ␦ij > 1}.
to handle both without moving location; so more than one
crane or greater lifting capacity is required. The closeness of Criteria of Task Assignment
tasks can be measured by the size of overlapping area, e.g.,
task 2 is closer to task 1 than task 3 because the overlapping Two criteria are applied to measure assignment effective-
area between tasks 1 and 2 is larger than that for 1 and 3. This ness: balanced workloads in terms of respective transportation
concept can be extended to measure closeness of a task to a
task group. For example, area C in Fig. 2(b) is a feasible area TABLE 1. Accessibility Matrix
of a task group consisting of three tasks, where task 5 is said Tasks
to be closer to the task group than task 4 since the overlapping
area between C and D is larger than that between C and E. If Cranes Task 1 Task 2 ⭈⭈⭈ Task j ⭈⭈⭈ Task J
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
task 5 is added to the group, the feasible area of the new group
would be D, shown in Figure 2(c). Crane1 ␦11 ␦12
Crane2 ␦21 ␦22
⭈⭈⭈
Grouping Tasks into Separated Classes Cranei ␦ij
⭈⭈⭈
If no overlapping exists between feasible areas, two cranes CraneI ␦IJ
are required to handle each task separately if no other
116 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.

 time for each crane, and lowest possibility of conflict. Bal- results of task assignment. For all cranes and all tasks, the
anced workload condition can be measured by the standard conflict index (reflecting general possibility of conflicts) can
deviation of Ti, from now be calculated as

冑冘 冘冘
I⫺1 I
I
(T¯ ⫺ Ti)2 NC = NCik = NC(␦11, ␦12, . . . ␦21, ␦22, . . . ␦ij , . . . , ␦IJ)
␴= = ␴(␦11, ␦12, . . . ␦21, ␦22, . . . ␦ij, . . . , ␦IJ) i=1 l=i
i I

where Ti = transportation time of ith crane hook, and is given Task Assignment Algorithm
by By integrating the above two criteria, task assignment can

冘
J be represented as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

再 冎
Ti = ␦ij ⭈ Qj ⭈ (t 1ij ⫹ t 2ij ⫹ t 3ij ⫹ t 4ij)
C C
j=1 NC(x, y, ␦11, ␦12, . . . ␦21, ␦22, . . . ␦ij , . . . , ␦IJ)
min C C
␴(x, y, ␦11, ␦12, . . . ␦21, ␦22, . . . ␦ij , . . . , ␦IJ)
where (t 1ij ⫹ t 2ij ⫹ t 3ij ⫹ t 4ij) = transportation time of ith crane
performing jth tasks, and t 1ij, t 2ij, t 3ij, and t 4ij =, respectively, hook where the variables ␦ij are those whose j 僆 J̃ = { j: 兺Ii ␦ij > 1}
travel time with load, the one without load, the means of load- and (Cx, C
y ) are locations of the cranes produced by the initial
ing delay, and unloading delay; Qj = number of lift of jth task; location generation model, and are treated as constants at this
and T̄ = 1/I ⭈ 兺Ii Ti, the mean of transportation time of all cranes. stage. This model is an abnormal 0-1 integer programming,
To measure possibility of conflict, a parameter (NC), called and is impossible to solve by conventional algorithms. No
the conflict index is introduced. Each ␦ij corresponds to a tri- common optimal solution exists generally for both NC and ␴.
angle with apexes representing the supply point, demand point, However, a satisfactory solution can be obtained by a trade-
and crane location (Fig. 3). If two triangles are apart as in off between the two criteria, i.e., for each solution, i.e., a set
3(a), no conflict happens. The number of intersections between
two triangles reflects the severity of conflicts, i.e., the more
intersections the more likely are conflicts. Hence, conflict in
3(c) is more probable than in 3(b). Additionally, the intensity
of material flows also affects possibility of conflicts. There-
fore, let nij ,kl define the number of intersections of the two
triangles, respectively, consisting of crane i and task j, crane
k and task l. The possibility of conflicts between two crane-
task pairs should be proportionate to nij ,kl(Qij ⫹ Qkl), Qij, and
Qkl, being the number of lift of jth and lth tasks, respectively,
in ith and kth task groups. Hence, conflicts between cranes i
and k can be represented as

冘冘
L J

NCik = nij ,kl (Qij ⫹ Qkl)

l=1 j=1

Obviously, nij ,kl is closely related to ␦ij , which depends on the

FIG. 3. Severity of Conflicts FIG. 4. Flow Chart of Task Assignment

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999 / 117

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.

 of ␦ij generally randomly, corresponding NC and ␴ are cal- Here, (x, y) are defined as discrete points in the feasible areas,
culated. The best assignment solution is always replaced by and can be produced by gridding the feasible area. By apply-
the newly generated solution if the new solution can make (1) ing simulation to all (x, y) one after another, a location with
both NC and ␴ better; (2) NC better, but ␴ worse within ac- minimal average transportation time of hook (x*, y*) is taken
ceptable scope (say 10%); and/or (3) ␴ better up to 30% but as optimal location, namely
NC worse by no more than 5%. The purpose of this compro-
mise is to accelerate iteration and put more emphasis on non- ATT(x*, y*) = min ATT(x, y)
for all (x,y)
conflict consideration. The algorithm is represented as a flow
chart in Fig. 4. The model mimics the whole process of delivery and produces
a location where the crane is likely to complete tasks most
Single Tower Crane Location Model quickly. Loading and unloading times are treated automatically
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as random variables with normal distributions; alternatively,

Every task is assigned uniquely to a group, together with the user is allowed to define a specific delay distribution.
balanced workloads and minimal possibilities of interference.
However, each task group may correspond frequently with fea- Hook Travel Time for Performing Task
sible areas rather than a single point; thus Monte-Carlo sim-
ulation is employed to determine the exact crane location, in If (XDj , YDj , ZDj) and (XSj , YSj , ZSj) refer, respectively, to
terms of spatial layout and frequency of tasks, without chang- the location of S and D of a task, for a crane located at (x, y),
ing the composition of the task groups. Let J denote the num- hook travel time T can be expressed as T = max(Th, Tv) ⫹ ␤
ber of tasks in the ith crane task group, and Qj the total number ⭈ min(Th, Tv). Here, hook vertical travel time Tv = Vv ⭈ (Zi ⫺ Zj);
of repetitions of tasks j (lifts). Within Qj there are K batches, hook horizontal travel time Th = max(Ta, T␻) ⫹ ␣ ⭈ min(Ta, T␻);
N kj defined as the repeated number of task j in batch k, and and Ta, T␻ = times for trolley radial and tangent movement,
P kj as the percentage of the tasks in batch k out of Qj . A request respectively, being calculated from (see Fig. 5)
represents a signal to indicate that the demand for a task j
occurs, the average number of requests for task j being cal- ␳(Dj) = 兹(XDj ⫺ x)2 ⫹ (YDj ⫺ y)2
culated by ␳(Sj) = 兹(XSj ⫺ x)2 ⫹ (YSj ⫺ y)2
Qj
lj = 兹(XDj ⫺ XSj)2 ⫹ (YDj ⫺ YSj)2

冘
Rj = K

P jk ⭈ N jk Time for trolley radial movement:

冉 冊
k=1
兩␳(Dj) ⫺ ␳(Sj)兩 1 l 2j ⫺ ␳(Di)2 ⫺ ␳(Sj)2
As an example, jth task is concrete handling with a total of Ta = ; T␻ = ⭈ Arc cos ;
Va ␻ 2 ⭈ ␳(Di) ⭈ ␳(Sj)
100 lifts (Qj = 100) between an S-D pair; the job is in batch
manner, meaning that the deliveries are performed uninter- (0 ⱕ Arc cos(␪) ⱕ ␲)
rupted. The task consists of three batches (K = 3), respectively,
for different building-element pours: 70% total lifts (70 lifts) where Va = radial velocity of trolley (m/min); ␻ = slewing
in 10-lift batch for slabs (N 1j = 10, P 1j = 70%), 20% total lift velocity of jib (r/min); and Vh = hoist velocity of hook (m/
(20 lifts) in 5-lift batch for columns, and finally 10% total lifts min). Here, ␣ and ␤ are two parameters between 0 to 1; ␣
(10 lifts) in 2-lift batch for beams. Thus the average number represents the degree of coordination of hook movement in
of request times for task j is 100/(0.7*10 ⫹ 0.2*5 ⫹ 0.1*2) radial and tangential directions in the horizontal plane; and ␤
= 12 (times). The frequency of requests for task j can be de- reflects those in the vertical and horizontal planes. There are
fined as two extreme situations for ␣: simultaneous movement occurs
when ␣ = 0, and consecutive movement when ␣ = 1, depend-
Rj ing on the skill of the operator and the spaciousness of the

冘
Fj = J
site. For ␤, there are also two extreme situations: simultaneous
Rj
j=1

By means of the above, a mechanism to simulate operation

of the crane hook can be achieved by two random variables,
the first representing occurrence of a request that could be any
one of J possibilities, and the second the type of the batch
within task j. For each realization of the random variable, its
path is recorded and the hook transportation time spent on the
mth request TR (m) is calculated from
TR (m) = T(Dj⬘ , Sj) ⫹ N jk ⭈ [L(Sj) ⫹ T(Sj , Dj) ⫹ U(Dj)

⫹ T(Dj , Sj)] ⫺ T(Dj , Sj)

where T(Dj⬘ , Sj) = hook travel time without loads from D of
task j⬘ (produced by last request) to S of present request j;
T(Sj , Dj) = hook travel time with loads from Sj to Dj ; T(Dj , Sj)
= hook travel time without loads from Dj to Sj ; L(Sj) = hook
delay time for loading at Sj ; and U(Dj) = hook delay time for
unloading at Dj . When the number of iterations M is large
enough, average transportation time of hook (ATT) can be
achieved by

冘
M
1
ATT(x, y) = TR (m)
M m=1 FIG. 5. Hook Travel Time

118 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.

 movement in two planes when ␤ = 0 or consecutive movement TABLE 2. Major Output from First Three Sets of Input
when ␤ = 1. The value of ␤ depends on the height of the
working floor (the higher the floor, the greater is ␤). Ideally,
the value of both parameters need to be calibrated by observed
data obtained from real construction sites. Kogan (1976) men-
tioned that an experienced driver performs simultaneous op-
erations during 76% of the total duration of the cycle; thus,
here the value of parameter ␣ is assumed as 0.25, unless oth-
erwise stated, and ␤ is assumed as 1, i.e., the hook moves
consecutively in two planes.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Location Optimization for Group of Tower Cranes

This can be realized by integrating the above three sub-
models. If new NC and ␴ (corresponding with new crane lo-
cations) are improved, or at least NC declines while ␴ fluc-
tuates within an acceptable range, the previous will be replaced
by new ones and stored in the buffer. Otherwise, if new NC
and ␴ deteriorate, the old remains, the task assignment model
can then be resumed from the new crane location. When the
cycles have been carried out sufficiently or the descent is no
longer significant to make NC and ␴ better, crane locations in
the buffer are considered optimal.

MODEL EXPERIMENT
To investigate model effectiveness a hypothetical case was
tested. The building is a reinforced concrete frame (Fig. 6)
with a working floor at about 35 m height, and an elevator
well. The main transportation tasks include deliveries of in situ
concrete materials from seven supply points. The three hatched
areas are feasible location areas permitted by site conditions,
the building being simplified with 24 demand points. Data on
the tasks, three cranes, and site boundaries are detailed in Ap-
pendix I.

Model Output
Six sets of initial task-crane pairs were tested; outcomes for
the first three sets {1(crane)-8(task), 2-25, 3-55}, {1-1, 2-26,
3-39}, and {1-24, 2-30, 3-71} are shown in Table 2, with
primary task groups and corresponding feasible areas led by
the initial location generation model illustrated in Fig. 7. The

FIG. 7. Task Group and Feasible Areas by Generation Model

model started with three different sets of combinations of task

and crane, but final task groups and resultant feasible areas
were all identical. Subsequently, the center of the respective
feasible areas was automatically passed to the task assignment
model. After 2,000 iterations, the task assignment model pro-
duced a new task assignment with the conflict index 13,053
FIG. 6. Site Plan reduced from 18,496 and standard deviation of workload 1,292
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999 / 119

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 8. Distribution of ATT for Cranes 1 and 2

TABLE 3. Major Output from Last Three Sets of Input

(min) reduced from 1,584, i.e., ameliorated respectively at ap- timization), and should be calculated again. In this case, the
proximately 30% and 20%. The corresponding feasible areas conflict index for the new location remains the same while ␴
were also changed respectively, as shown in Fig. 6. declines from 1,292 to 1,233, i.e., the best optimal locations
Discrete coordinates resulting from gridding the feasible ar- so far are kept. The next round of task assignment can start
eas are further checked, only those satisfying the requirements from the present optimal locations. In this example, another
of the site conditions eventually forming final feasible loca- three rounds are run. However, no improvement was achieved
tions. The single-tower-crane location model is thereafter ap- so the location produced for the first round is considered to
plied to these points to start simulation, and finally produces be optimal (Fig. 6).
average transportation time of hook at the points. Fig. 8 shows To explore how the model responded to various combina-
the distribution of ATT for cranes 1 and 2 — but without crane tions of task-crane pairs in a larger range, another three sets
3, since there is only one feasible location for crane 3, as of crane-task pairs were examined. For this purpose, the cranes
illustrated in Fig. 6. Optimal crane location is the one where were located inside the building; input and output are shown
the minimal ATT is achieved. However, once the crane is in Table 3. After four simulation rounds for each set of initial
moved from its initial to its optimal location, the conflict index input, all conflict indexes and standard deviations of sets 4 and
and standard deviation of workloads might be changed (but 5 reduced substantially. Apart from the data output, the user
are assumed to remain unaltered in the course of location op- can also take advantage of the model’s graphic display for
120 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.

 site managers; other factors relating to building structure,
foundation conditions, laydown spaces for materials, accessi-
bility of adjoining properties and so on, also contribute to the
problem of locations. Therefore, the final decision should be
made in connection with these factors.

APPENDIX I. DATA REQUIREMENTS

Task Data
S1 and S4 are concrete loading points, S3 and S5 the re-
inforcement workshop, S2 and S6 the formwork yards, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

S7, S8, and S9 the loading platforms for previously used form-
work waiting to be lifted to the working floor (Fig. 6). The
number of lifts between S-D pairs is listed in Table A-1. The
number between D-D pairs are for sundries lift.
Table A-2 lists the parameters related to a probabilistic dis-
tribution of loading and unloading delays, each task being al-
lowed to have its own delay type and distribution parameter
specified by the user. Similarly, the number of batches, size of
batch, and maximum weight of lift are also assumed to be
solely related to the type of materials handled (Table A-3).

Crane Data
This consists of crane type technical parameters such as the
FIG. 9. Feasible Areas from Last Three Sets of Input load-radius profile, speeds of hook hoisting, trolley sliding,
and boom slewing.
shape and size of feasible areas, illustrated in Fig. 9. In this
case study, from the data and graphic output, the user may Site Boundary Data
become aware that optimal locations led by test sets 1, 2, and
3 (Fig. 3) are the best choices (balanced workload, conflict These are defined by the coordinates of polygons repre-
possibility, and efficient operation). Alternatively, in connec- sented as allowed areas for locating cranes (Fig. 6).
tion with site conditions such as availability of space for the
TABLE A-1. Task Spatial and Frequency Distribution
crane position and ground conditions for the foundation, site
boundaries were restricted. Consequently, one of the cranes
had to be positioned in the building. In this respect, the out-
comes resulting from set 4 would be a good choice in terms
of a reasonable conflict index and standard deviation of work-
load, provided that a climbing crane is available and the build-
ing structure is capable of supporting this kind of crane. Oth-
erwise, set 5 results would be preferable with the stationary
tower crane located in the elevator well, but at the cost of
suffering the high possibility of interference and unbalanced
workloads.

CONCLUSIONS
Overall coverage of tasks tends to be the major criterion in
planning crane group location. However, this requirement may
not determine optimal location. The model helps improve con-
ventional location methods, based on the concept that the
workload for each crane should be balanced, likelihood of in-
terference minimized, and efficient operation achieved. To do
this, three submodels were highlighted. First, by classifying all
tasks into different task groups according to geometric ‘‘close-
ness’’ an overall layout is produced. Second, based on a set
of points located respectively in the feasible areas (initial lo-
cation), the task assignment readjusts the groups to produce
new optimal task groups with smoothed workloads and least
possibility of conflicts, together with feasible areas created. TABLE A-2. Statistic Parameters for Delay
Finally, optimization is applied for each crane one by one to Unload Delay
find an exact location in terms of hook transport time in three Load Delay (minimum) (minimum)
dimensions.
Experimental results indicate that the model performs sat- Standard Standard
isfactorily. In addition to the improvement on safety and av- Material Mean ␮ deviation ␴ Mean ␮ deviation ␴
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
erage efficiency of all cranes, 10 – 40% savings of total hooks
transportation time can be achieved. Effort has been made to Concrete 3 1 4 2
model the key criteria for locating a group of tower cranes, Formwork 2 0.5 2 0.7
Reinforcement 2 0.5 2 0.7
and two real site data have been used to test the model. How- Sundries 2 1 4 2
ever, it does not capture all the expertise and experience of
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999 / 121

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.

 TABLE A-3. Size of Lift Batches

Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3

Maximum
weight of lift Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Material (T) of lifts (%) of lifts (%) of lifts (%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Concrete 1 30 80 4 15 2 5
Formwork 1.2 2 100 — — — —
Reinforcement 1.3 1 100 — — — —
Sundries 1.2 1 100 — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 04/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APPENDIX II. BIBLIOGRAPHY Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Civ. and Struct. Engrg. Computing, Vol: De-
velopment in computational techniques for civil engineering, CIVIL-
Alhussein, M., Alkass, S., and Moselhi, O. (1995). ‘‘A computer inte- COMP Press, Edinburgh, U.K., 25 – 32.
grated system for crane selection.’’ Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Civ. and Zhang, P., Harris, F. C., and Olomolaiye, P. O. (1996). ‘‘A computer-
Struct. Engrg. Computing, Volume: Development in computer aided based model for optimising the location of a single tower crane.’’
design and modelling for civil engineering, CIVIL-COMP Press, Ed- Build. Res. and Inf., 24(2), 113 – 123.
inburgh, U.K., 43 – 48.
Alkass, A., Aronian, A., and Moselhi, O. (1994). ‘‘Computer-aided equip-
ment selection for transporting and placing concrete.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. APPENDIX III. REFERENCES
and Mgmt., ASCE, 119(3), 445 – 465.
Borland C⫹⫹ manuals. (1993). Borland International, Inc., Scotts Valley, Choi, C. W., and Harris, F. C. (1991). ‘‘A model for determining optimum
Calif. crane position.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., Institution of Civil Engi-
Dickie, D. E., and Short, D. (1981). Crane handbook, revised U.K. ed. neers, London, Part 1, 90, 627 – 634.
Butterworth, London. Emsley, M. W. (1992). ‘‘Discussion on a model for the selection of the
Harris, F. C. (1991). Modern construction equipment and methods. Long- optimum crane for construction sites.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., Struct.
man Science and Technology, London, U.K. and Buildings, 94, 503 – 504.
Harris, F. C., and McCaffer, R. (1991). ‘‘Management of contractors Farrell, C. W., and Hover, K. C. (1989). ‘‘Computerised crane selection
plant.’’ Technical Information Service, Chartered Inst. of Building, and placement for the construction site.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Civ.
U.K., No. 127. and Struct. Engrg. Computing, CIVIL-COMP Press, Edinburgh, U.K.,
Herbert, P. F. (1974). ‘‘Vertical movement of materials on high rise build- 1.
ing.’’ Build. Technol. and Mgmt., 12(4). Furusaka, S., and Gray, C. (1984). ‘‘A model for the selection of the
Illingworth, J. R. (1993). Construction Methods and Planning, 1st Ed., optimum crane for construction sites.’’ Constr. Mgmt. and Economics,
E & FN Spon, London. 2, 157 – 176.
Rodriguez-Ramos, W. E., and Francis, R. L. (1983). ‘‘Single crane lo- Gray, C., and Little, J. (1985). ‘‘A systematic approach to the selection
cation optimisation.’’ J. Constr. and Mgmt., ASCE, 109(4), 387 – 396. of an appropriate crane for a construction site.’’ Constr. Mgmt. and
Warszawski, A. (1985). ‘‘Decision model and expert system in construc- Economics, 3, 121 – 144.
tion management.’’ Build. and Envir., 20(4), 201 – 210. Kogan, J. (1976). Crane design — Theory and calculation of reliability.
Wijesundera, D. A., and Harris, F. C. (1989). ‘‘The selection of materials Wiley, New York.
handling methods in construction by simulation.’’ Constr. Mgmt. and Warszawski, A. (1973). ‘‘Analysis of transportation methods in construc-
Economics, 7, 95 – 102. tion.’’ J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 99(1), 191 – 202.
Wijesuundera, D. A., Olomolaiye, P. O., and Harris, F. C. (1991). ‘‘Dy- Warszawski, A. (1990). ‘‘Expert system for crane selection.’’ Constr.
namic simulation applied to materials handling in high-rise construc- Mgmt. and Economics, 8, 179 – 190.
tion.’’ Comp. and Struct., 41(6), 1133 – 1139. Wijesundera, D. A., and Harris, F. C. (1986). ‘‘Computer simulation for
Zhang, P., Harris, F. C., Olomolaiye, P. O., and Goodwin, M. (1995). ‘‘A materials handling in high rise construction.’’ Proc., Int. AMSE Conf.
simulation model for optimising the location of a single tower crane.’’ on Modelling and Simulation, Sorrento, Italy, 4.4, 81 – 95.

122 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:115-122.