Cyber–physical systems development for construction applications

doi:10.1007/s42524-020-0130-4

Front. Eng

2021, Vol. 8

Issue (1) : 72-87 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-020-0130-4

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Cyber–physical systems development for construction applications

Chinemelu J. ANUMBA¹(

), Abiola AKANMU², Xiao YUAN³, Congwen KAN¹

¹. College of Design, Construction, and Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
². Myers-Lawson School of Construction, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
³. Pacific Asset Management Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200135, China

Download: PDF(6243 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Cyber–physical systems (CPS) are intended to facilitate the tight coupling of the cyber and physical worlds. Their potential for enhancing the delivery and management of constructed facilities is now becoming understood. In these systems, it is vital to ensure bi-directional consistency between construction components and their digital replicas. This paper introduces the key features of CPS and describes why they are ideally suited for addressing a number of problems in the delivery of construction projects. It draws on examples of research prototypes developed using surveys, field experiments, and prototyping methodologies, to outline the key features and benefits of CPS for construction applications and the approach to their development. In addition, it outlines the lessons learned from developing various systems for the design, construction and management of constructed facilities, which include building component placement and tracking, temporary structures monitoring, and mobile crane safety. The paper concludes that the construction industry stands to reap numerous benefits from the adoption of CPS. It states that the future direction of CPS in construction will be driven by technological developments and the extent to which CPS is deployed in new application areas.

Keywords cyber–physical systems components temporary structures cranes sensors

Corresponding Author(s): Chinemelu J. ANUMBA

Just Accepted Date: 10 July 2020 Online First Date: 11 September 2020 Issue Date: 15 January 2021

Cite this article:

Chinemelu J. ANUMBA,Abiola AKANMU,Xiao YUAN, et al. Cyber–physical systems development for construction applications[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 72-87.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-020-0130-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2021/V8/I1/72

Fig.1 Key features of cyber–physical system.

Fig.2 Bi-directional coordination approach to cyber–physical systems.

Fig.3 System architecture for bi-directional coordination approach to CPS (^{Akanmu et al., 2013}; ^{Kan et al., 2018a}).

Fig.4 Progress monitoring and as-built documentation.

Fig.5 Hardware setup for bulk material tracking and control (^{Akanmu et al., 2014}).

Fig.6 Track and bind interface with selected fixture and tag ID.

Fig.7 Initiated interface for progress monitoring and control.

Tab.1 DALI commands and messages for a sample fixture

Fig.8 Virtual and physical temporary structures.

Fig.9 User interface of TSM system.

Fig.10 CPS framework for mobile crane safety.

Fig.11 Sensing system deployment for crane pose sensing (UWB: ultra-wide band, IMU: inertial measurement unit).

Fig.12 Sensing system deployment for work environment recognition.

Fig.13 Crane operations on site (top) vs. reconstructed crane operations in a virtual platform (bottom) (^{Kan et al., 2020}).

Fig.14 Tablet deployed in the crane cabin for displaying control feedbacks.

Fig.15 User interface for lifting scene visualization and potential hazard identification.

1	M Abdel-Wahab, B Vogl (2011). Trends of productivity growth in the construction industry across Europe, US and Japan. Construction Management and Economics, 29(6): 635–644 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.573568
2	A Akanmu, C J Anumba, J I Messner (2013). Scenarios for cyber–physical systems integration in construction. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 18(12): 240–260
3	A Akanmu, C J Anumba, J I Messner (2014). Active monitoring and control of light fixtures during building construction and operation: Cyber–physical systems approach. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 20(2): 04013008 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000140
4	C J Anumba, A Akanmu, J I Messner (2010). Towards a cyber–physical systems approach to construction. In: Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice, 528–537
5	M Bilal, L O Oyedele, J Qadir, K Munir, S O Ajayi, O O Akinade, H A Owolabi, H A Alaka, M Pasha (2016). Big Data in the construction industry: A review of present status, opportunities, and future trends. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 30(3): 500–521 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2016.07.001
6	B Bordel, R Alcarria, T Robles, D Martín (2017). Cyber–physical systems: Extending pervasive sensing from control theory to the Internet of Things. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 40: 156–184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2017.06.011
7	Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI)—current and revised data. Washington DC: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
8	N Chen, C Xiao, F Pu, X Wang, C Wang, Z Wang, J Gong (2015). Cyber–physical geographical information service-enabled control of diverse in-situ sensors. Sensors, 15(2): 2565–2592 https://doi.org/10.3390/s150202565 pmid: 25625906
9	T S Dillon, H Zhuge, C Wu, J Singh, E Chang (2011). Web-of-things framework for cyber–physical systems. Concurrency and Computation, 23(9): 905–923 https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.1629
10	B Fabiano, F Currò, A P Reverberi, R Pastorino (2008). A statistical study on temporary work and occupational accidents: Specific risk factors and risk management strategies. Safety Science, 46(3): 535–544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.004
11	Y Fang, Y K Cho, F Durso, J Seo (2018). Assessment of operator’s situation awareness for smart operation of mobile cranes. Automation in Construction, 85: 65–75 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.007
12	M Grant, P F Pallett (2012). Temporary Works: Principles of Design and Construction. London: ICE Publishing
13	J W Hinze, J Teizer (2011). Visibility-related fatalities related to construction equipment. Safety Science, 49(5): 709–718 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.007
14	C Kan, C J Anumba, Y Fang, J I Messner (2020). CPS-based system for enhanced mobile crane safety. In: Anumba C J, Roofigari-Esfahan N, eds. Cyber–Physical Systems in the Built Environment. Berlin: Springer, 193–213
15	C Kan, Y Fang, C J Anumba, J I Messner (2018a). A Cyber–Physical System (CPS) for planning and monitoring mobile cranes on construction sites. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Management, Procurement and Law. ICE Publishing, 171(6): 240–250
16	C Kan, P Zhang, Y Fang, C J Anumba, J I Messner (2018b). A taxonomic analysis of mobile crane fatalities for CPS-based simulation. In: Mela K, Pajunen S, Raasakka V, eds. 17th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. Tampere, 5–7
17	I Lee (2017). An exploratory study of the impact of the Internet of Things (IoT) on business model innovation: Building smart enterprises at fortune 500 companies. In: The Internet of Things: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. IGI Global, 423–440
18	J C Mckiniley (2011). After accidents, a call for regulation. The New York Times, 2011/08/24
19	F Mutter, S Gareis, B Schätz, A Bayha, F Grüneis, M Kanis, D Koss (2011). Model-driven in-the-loop validation: Simulation-based testing of UAV software using virtual environments. In: 18th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems. Las Vegas, 269–275
20	R Navon, R Sacks (2007). Assessing research issues in automated project performance control (APPC). Automation in Construction, 16(4): 474–484 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.08.001
21	R L Neitzel, N S Seixas, K K Ren (2001). A review of crane safety in the construction industry. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 16(12): 1106–1117 https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220127411 pmid: 11783872
22	M Selecký, J Faigl, M Rollo (2017). Mixed reality simulation for incremental development of multi-UAV systems. In: International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). Miami, FL: IEEE, 1530–1538
23	S Tang, D R Shelden, C M Eastman, P Pishdad-Bozorgi, X Gao (2019). A review of building information modeling (BIM) and the Internet of Things (IoT) devices integration: Present status and future trends. Automation in Construction, 101: 127–139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.01.020
24	Y Turkan, F Bosche, C T Haas, R Haas (2012). Automated progress tracking using 4D schedule and 3D sensing technologies. Automation in Construction, 22: 414–421 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.10.003
25	S M Whitaker, R J Graves, M James, P McCann (2003). Safety with access scaffolds: Development of a prototype decision aid based on accident analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 34(3): 249–261 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(03)00025-2 pmid: 12963071
26	F Xia, A Vinel, R Gao, L Wang, T Qiu (2011). Evaluating IEEE 802.15.4 for cyber–physical systems. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 596397
27	X Yuan, C J Anumba, M K Parfitt (2016). Cyber–physical systems for temporary structure monitoring. Automation in Construction, 66: 1–14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.02.005
28	J Zhou, E Gilman, J Palola, J Riekki, M Ylianttila, J Sun (2011). Context-aware pervasive service composition and its implementation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(3): 291–303 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0333-5

[1]	Ziyao ZHANG, Zhenmin YUAN, Guodong NI, Han LIN, Yujie LU. The quality traceability system for prefabricated buildings using blockchain: An integrated framework[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(4): 528-546.
[2]	Burcu Akinci. Situational Awareness in Construction and Facility Management[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(3): 283-289.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed