See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355782294

Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure

maintenance projects using uniform cost search method

Article  in  Soft Computing · October 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s00500-021-06408-7(

CITATIONS READS

0 47

3 authors:

Amr G. Mansour Mohamed S. Eid

Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport
3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   241 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Emad Elbeltagi
Mansoura University
101 PUBLICATIONS   2,749 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovation in the Construction Industry View project

Construction Joint Ventures - Profit and Risk Sharing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amr G. Mansour on 30 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soft Computing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06408-7 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

OPTIMIZATION

Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure

maintenance projects using uniform cost search method
Amr G. Mansour1 • Mohamed S. Eid1 • Emad E. Elbeltagi2

Accepted: 10 October 2021

 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Linear infrastructure projects in congested urban cities require optimal site layout planning. Nevertheless, most of the
existing models are developed to address building construction projects with confined boundaries. This paper presents a
model for assigning construction facilities locations (CFL) to each work segment in linear infrastructure projects that are
characterized by frequent changes of construction site location as the work progresses. The model accounts for the resource
transportation cost, land renting cost, relocation cost of CFLs, as well as duration needed for each work segment. The
proposed model utilizes a tree search algorithm—Uniform Cost Search (UCS)—that guarantees a global optimal solution.
In addition, a pruning technique is utilized to decrease the tree size to reduce the needed computation time. Finally, to
account for the stochastic factors (i.e., transportation cost and duration needed per segment), the model is integrated into a
Monte Carlo simulation. The proposed model, with the pruning algorithm, is able to solve a 4 trillion-solution space
problem in under 3000 ms using an 8 GB Ram, 2 GHz machine. The proposed model can be integrated into the planning
and site layout decision making processes for linear infrastructure projects to reduce the overall site layout cost and
maintain adequate site conditions while reducing the interruptions in road utilization. Finally, the presented pruning
algorithm can be utilized in similar construction engineering problems to efficiently identify global optimal solutions.

Keywords Linear infrastructure projects  Tree search  Uniform cost search  Tree pruning

1 Introduction offices, mess rooms and maintenance rooms (Abotaleb

et al. 2016; Elbeltagi et al. 2001; El-Rayes and Khalafallah
Construction site layout requires adequate use of available 2005). In urban construction projects, site space is con-
limited site space to efficiently place and relocate tempo- sidered as critical as labor, money and material or any other
rary facilities (TFs) on site while respecting the work limited resources. This is due to the lack of free areas
interrelationships (Farmakis and Chassiakos 2018). TFs outside the construction site boundaries especially in con-
include storage areas for material, parking lots for equip- gested cities (Elbeltagi et al. 2001). Moreover, construction
ment, access roads, batch plants, fabrication shops, site site layout efficiency affects labors and equipment pro-
ductivities, project time and cost and site safety (Elbeltagi
et al. 2001; El-Rayes and Said 2009). Various studies have
& Mohamed S. Eid been carried out on construction site layout planning
meid@aast.edu
(CSLP) for building projects, but to the authors knowledge
Amr G. Mansour there is no significant models developed for CSLP for
amrgamal@aast.edu
linear infrastructure projects.
Emad E. Elbeltagi Urban cities linear infrastructure projects (i.e., road
eelbelta@mans.edu.eg
maintenance, pipe installation, etc.) require frequent
1
Construction and Building Engineering, Arab Academy for changes of site location as the work proceed (Eid et al.
Science, Technology, and Maritime – Sheraton Heliopolis, 2019; Moselhi and Hassanein 2003). For example, if the
Cairo 11799, Egypt work is divided into segments, the construction site neither
2
Department of Structural Engineering, Mansoura University, has an exact location nor boundaries, but dynamically
Mansoura 35516, Egypt

123

move throughout the operations (Mansour et al. 2019;
Moselhi and Hassanein 2003). This makes the site layout
planning process different for linear infrastructure projects
in contrast to traditional building construction projects.
Infrastructure construction and maintenance work for
urban crowded and congested cities do not have the luxury
of free spaces surrounding the roads. Thus, a proper model
for selecting the locations of TFs and accounting for the
dynamic nature of the project is required. Such model
should take into consideration the scarce available spaces,
transportation of crews, and the associated transportation,
relocation and renting cost (Mansour et al. 2019). The
aforementioned factors are stochastic in nature as their
values may vary depending on the road segments’ location
and traffic condition. Thus, the developed model needs to
account for such uncertainties.
2 Goal and objectives
The goal of this research is to develop an optimization
model for the selection of the construction facilities loca-
tions (CFL) for linear infrastructure projects in congested
urban cities. The model accounts for the planned progress
of work throughout project segments. In addition, the
model finds a global optimal solution rather than relying on
near optimal approaches. Finally, the model considers the
impact of the stochastic factors of linear projects on the
optimal selection of each segment CFL.
3 Literature review
CSLP includes two main steps: (1) facility assignment and
(2) layout planning. Assigning facilities on site has two
types, facility-to-location assignment and facility-to-site
assignment (Osman et al. 2003; Farmakis and Chassiakos
2018). In the former type, the TFs are assigned to a pre-
determined location. The number of these predetermined
locations is greater than or equal the number of facilities
and the size of the largest facility can fit in the smallest
location (Cheung et al. 2002; Osman et al. 2003). If the
number of the locations exceeds the number of TFs, a
dummy facility with zero effect on the objective function is
added to facilitate the computational process (Cheung et al.
2002; Farmakis and Chassiakos 2018). In facility-to-site
assignment, any unoccupied space on site can be a poten-
tial location for the TFs (Osman et al. 2003). In the latter
approach the way of representing the facilities (facilities
shapes) plays an important role in determining the opti-
mum location of the facilities, which makes it a more
dynamic approach (Abotaleb et al. 2016).
123
A. G. Mansour et al.
3.1 Evaluating CSLP
Based on the review of the existing body of knowledge,
most of the previous CSLP models have evaluated the
CSLP based on two main factors: in-site resources trans-
portation cost and TFs’ relocation cost (El-Rayes and Said
2009; Cheung et al. 2002; El-Rayes and Khalafallah 2005;
RazaviAlavi and AbouRizk 2017; El-Rayes and Said 2009;
Abotaleb et al. 2016; Farmakis and Chassiakos 2018;
Mansour et al. 2019). Resources transportation cost is
crucial in construction projects as almost all construction
activities involve movement of equipment, labors and
materials. Therefore, in-site resources transportation affects
the work flow, productivity of resources, project cost and
time (Cheung et al. 2002; El-Rayes and Khalafallah 2005;
El-Rayes and Said 2009; Abotaleb et al. 2016; Mansour
et al. 2019). The resource transportation cost is calculated
between all construction facilities on site based on (1)
traveled distance between facilities a and b (Da,b) and (2)
travel cost rate per unit distance between facilities a and
b (Ca,b) (El-Rayes and Khalafallah 2005).
Da,b can be measured by three different methods: (1)
Cartesian distance, (2) shortest walk distance and (3)
rectangular distance (Cheung et al. 2002; Abotaleb et al.
2016). The decision of which method to be used is based on
the actual movement of resources on site. Cartesian dis-
tance is the simplest distance measurement technique and
the most commonly used. It measures the shortest straight
line distance between two facilities (Abotaleb et al. 2016).
The shortest walk distance is the minimum distance
between two facilities. The shortest walk is a more realistic
approach as it takes in consideration a specific path in order
to avoid collisions with obstacles (Abotaleb et al. 2016).
Rectangular distance is a summation of the horizontal and
vertical movements of resources between facilities (xa-
- xb) ? (ya - yb) where xa, yb are the coordinates of the
center of facility a and xa, ya are those of facility b. This
method is used when the physical sizes of the facilities
prevent the diagonal movement of resource between loca-
tions (Cheung et al. 2002; Yahya and Saka 2014).
The cost of relocating TFs throughout the project
duration is another important factor in evaluating the fit-
ness of the CSLP. TFs are divided into two categories
according to their mobility state. Stationary facilities (SFs)
locations are determined from the very beginning of the
project and do not change throughout the project stages.
Tower cranes and batch plants are examples of such SFs.
The relocation of such SFs is often infeasible due to the
high relocation cost and significant time needed (El-Rayes
and Said 2009). On the other hand, movable facilities
(MFs) can be relocated as work progresses or moving to a
new stage such as construction equipment parking
Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure maintenance projects using…
locations, materials storage areas and fabrication shops.
A MF can be relocated when a new free space or location
appeared on site, during the progress of work, which is
more efficient from the facility’s original location. This
change in location requires a relocation cost represented in
demobilization of the facility from its old location, trans-
porting to new location and reinstalling the facility in the
new location (El-Rayes and Said 2009).
3.2 Site layout planning and optimization
CSLP is an NP-complete problem (Kaveh et al. 2016).
Several techniques and approaches were utilized to assign
TFs on site, ranges from meta-heuristics and mathematical
models to knowledge-based systems (Abotaleb et al. 2016;
Farmakis and Chassiakos 2018; Patil and Joshi 2013).
Meta-heuristics and mathematical models require an
identified goal (objective function) to be optimized under
certain constraints to produce an optimum site layout.
Knowledge-based systems guide engineers to plan site
layout without getting involved into pure optimization
problems (Osman et al. 2003).
Meta-heuristics algorithms have been widely used by
researchers in solving CSLP problems as it shows high
computational powers and produces near optimum solu-
tions in an acceptable time (Farmakis and Chassiakos
2018; Yahya and Saka 2014). Zouein et al. (2002) pre-
sented a model that utilized genetics algorithms (GAs) in
solving site layout problem with unequal-size and con-
strained facilities. Elbeltagi et al. (2004) using GAs intro-
duced a model that maximizes safety and increases
productivity in construction sites. El-Rayes and Khalafal-
lah (2005) implemented GAs to decrease resources trans-
portation cost along with maximizing site safety. Yahya
and Saka (2014) proposed a model that uses a multi-ob-
jective artificial bee colony (MOABC) via Levy flights
algorithm to determine the optimum site layout through
decreasing total handling cost between TFs and increasing
safety in site. RazaviAlavi and AbouRizk (2017) intro-
duced an integration between GAs and simulation that
minimizes site layout construction cost. Farmakis and
Chassiakos (2018) developed a multi-objective dynamic
model to find global optimum site layout, (optimum site
layout for all project phases), considering resources trans-
portation cost between TFs and work places, construction
and relocation cost of TFs and safety of site.
As for knowledge-based systems, Tommelein et al.
(1992) presented an expert system (Sightplan) that com-
bines both construction managers experience in placing
TFs on site and the high computational powers of computer
in one model. Cheng and O’Connor (1996) introduced a
knowledge-based system, called ArcSite, which automates
the allocation of TFs on site and increases the site
efficiency.
The aforementioned approaches do not guarantee find-
ing an optimal solution (Farmakis and Chassiakos 2018;
Abotaleb et al. 2016). Meanwhile, tree search algorithms
guarantee optimality through searching through the prob-
lem’s solution space. Tree search algorithms solve a
problem by finding a sequence of actions that leads to an
optimal solution (Russell and Norvig 2010; Ibaraki 1975).
The problem is first coded into a tree of nodes (N) and
edges (e). Each N represents a state of the solution, while
each e depicts an action or transition from one state to the
next. All the possible states start from an initial point called
root node (No). Expanding No or any of the others states Ni
will lead to new child nodes depending on the branching
factor e (Russell and Norvig 2010; Felner 2011).
Breadth-first search, Depth-first search and uniform cost
search (UCS) are the three main tree search algorithms
(Russell and Norvig 2010; Ibaraki 1975). The difference
among all three algorithms is the priority or strategy to
expand the child node (Felner 2011). Breadth-first search
algorithm expands the child nodes of the same level first
then it moves to the next level (Rahim et al. 2019). In each
level, Breadth-first search gives priority of expansion to the
oldest created child node (first in first out queue, i.e., FIFO)
(Russell and Norvig 2010). Accordingly, the expansion
continues using FIFO queue until a goal state is reached.
Depth-first search algorithm gives priority to expand the
newest created child node (last in first out queue, i.e.,
LIFO) (Russell and Norvig 2010). In this algorithm, the
expansion starts with the deepest child node of a certain
branch. The expansion continues in this branch until no
more nodes are left for expansion in the branch. Then, it
moves to the second deepest node in another branch. Thus,
the expansion backs up until a goal state is reached (Russell
and Norvig 2010).
The UCS method is the optimal algorithm when the cost
of actions (e) are different. In contrast to the breadth-first
search method, UCS does not expand the oldest created
child node (shallowest node). Instead, it expands the least
cost child node (Felner 2011). This is done by sorting the
frontier nodes from lowest to highest cost. The search
continues in that manner until a goal state is reached. Once
a goal node is reached, then the path connecting this goal
node to the root node is selected as an optimal path (Russell
and Norvig 2010).
The UCS method had been used as an optimization
technique to solve problems in different engineering fields
other than construction. Sun, et al. (2017) introduced a
selection algorithm called active antenna group (AAG) that
involves the use of UCS algorithm as a base foundation for
the proposed model. AAG optimizes the selection of the
active antenna at each level of search in order to improve
123

the symbol error rate. Kuffner (2004) modified the UCS
algorithm in order to increase the efficiency of optimal
robot navigation planning on Euclidean-cost grid and
lattices.
A comparison between the UCS and GAs, the most
commonly used meta-heuristic optimization approach, is
presented in Table 1. The comparison shows the difference
between the two algorithms in time and space complexities
and also the optimality of the provided solution. In GAs,
the time taken by the algorithm to solve a problem of size
n is in a function of the population size and can be linear (O
(n)), up to O (n5) (Nopiah et al. 2010). As for solution
optimality, GAs provides a near optimal solution (Nopiah
et al. 2010; Farmakis and Chassiakos 2018; Yahya and
Saka 2014; Abotaleb et al. 2016)). On the other hand, the
problem size in UCS algorithm is determined by the
function O (bd), where b is the branches of the tree and d is
the tree depth (Russell and Norvig 2010; Ibaraki 1975). In
contrast to GAs, UCS algorithm guarantees optimal solu-
tion (Russell and Norvig 2010; Ibaraki 1975). Accordingly,
UCS provides a significantly better solution by guaran-
teeing the solution optimality, but at the expense of
increasing the overall computational time.
3.3 Knowledge gap
Previous models mentioned in the literature review address
building construction projects that has clear site boundaries
or certain construction area. The goal of these previous
studies was to determine the optimal configuration for the
location of TFs within a construction site area or bound-
aries. However, the presented study is developed to solve
site layout problems related to urban infrastructure projects
that are characterized by: (1) linearly distributed site
locations along a huge length and (2) frequent mobilization
of the TFs. As such, the goal of this study is to determine
the optimal locations of the TFs considering the afore-
mentioned special characteristics of these construction
sites.
4 Methodology
To achieve the research objectives and find the optimum
CFL for urban linear infrastructure projects, the authors
established a five-step research methodology: (1) identi-
fying the factors affecting the CFL selection for linear
Table 1 Comparison between
UCS and GAs
Time and space complexity
Optimality
123
A. G. Mansour et al.
infrastructure projects through literature review; (2)
developing a mathematical model defining the objective
function, constraints and variables of the proposed prob-
lem; (3) utilizing a well-established optimization technique
for selecting the optimum CFL for each road segment; (4)
running Monte Carlo simulations to capture the stochastic
nature of the problem’s factors; and (5) verifying the
capabilities of the developed model on hypothetical and
real case studies.
5 Model overview and assumptions
In urban cities, constructing linear infrastructure or main-
taining existing ones is usually carried out during the low
traffic volume hours. This allows for the usage of the
completed part of work during normal traffic volume hours.
As such, equipment and any used material must be parked
in a location other than the current project’s site. Unlike
highways and rural areas, there is no adequate right of way
in urban roads to be used as storage or parking areas, and
thus a remote location has to be determined. Such location
can be a parking lot, unused land, etc.
The proposed model presents such problem through
dividing the linear construction or maintenance project into
segments ‘‘j’’ and assigning one of the available CFL ‘‘i’’
for each road segment j, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The length
of the segments ‘‘j’’ is determined based on the practi-
tioners need and the area of the CFL ‘‘i’’ must not be less
than a predetermined area decided by the practitioners. All
equipment, materials, caravans, or any other TFs that are
used to serve the construction activities held in road seg-
ment j will be stored in the assigned CFL i. Accordingly, an
optimization model must be developed in order to assign
the optimum CFL i to each construction segment j (Man-
sour et al. 2019).
Through developing the proposed model, the authors
assumed that the construction work is held through the
project segments in a consecutive sequence. For example,
construction work in segment j = 2 will start after finishing
construction works of segment j = 1. Thus, no overlapping
between segments allowed. Also, the authors assumed that
only one CFL can be assigned to a work segment. Finally,
the authors focused on MF, and large SF were not
addressed in the proposed model.
Genetic algorithms (GAs) UCS
Up to O (n5) O (bd)
Provides near optimal solution Guarantee optimal solution
Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure maintenance projects using…

After work is done in segment j and progresses to seg-

ment j ? 1, the relocation of the temporary facilities might
be needed to decrease the overall cost. At this point the
relocation cost (Rlci,i*) becomes of great importance and
must be calculated. For the new segment j ? 1 there is a
choice whether to use the same CFL i used by the previous
segment j or use another CFL i*. Rlci,i* includes cost of
disassembling, transporting and reassembling of temporary
facilities from the current CFL i to the newly selected CFL
i*. Thus, the total relocation cost can be calculated using
Eq. (5).
Fig. 1 Dividing road into segments
X
I X
J
Tc ¼ xi;j Tcij  dj 8i; 8j ð3Þ
5.1 Model development i¼1 j¼1

Throughout the construction operation at segment j, it is

I X
X J
Rc ¼ xi;j Rci  dj 8i; 8j ð4Þ
required to assign a CFL i for storing materials, parking of i¼1 j¼1
equipment, etc. As such, the proposed model utilizes a
binary variable for the allocation of CFL i to the con- X
I X
I
Rlc ¼ Rlci;i xi;j  xi ;jþ1 8i; 8j; 8i 6¼ i ð5Þ
struction road segment j, as shown in Eq. (1). For example, i¼1 i
‘‘x1,2’’ means assigning CFL i = 1 to road segment j = 2.
 To this end, the model can evaluate a feasible solution
1 if CFLi is assigned to segement j for assigning CFLs to the different segments through
xi;j ¼ ð1Þ
0 otherwise Eq. (6). It should be noted that the objective function uti-
For every segment j there is a number of available CFL i lized in this model does not prioritize one cost over the
ready to be assigned. For instance, in Fig. 1 there are four others. This is due to lack of justification to carry out such
available CFLs (i = 1, 2, 3 and 4) that can be assigned to assumption. Nevertheless, the model can be modified to
segment j = 1. This gives four possible assignments for the provide weights if a practitioner sees it is of value to the
first segment. However, as previously discussed as an evolving project.
assumption, each segment j can use one and only one CFL. MinðTc þ Rc þ RlcÞ ð6Þ
As such the summation of xi,j over the same segment
should be equal to 1 as shown in Eq. (2).
X
I
6 Optimal location of TFs
xi;j ¼ 18j ð2Þ
i
6.1 Uniform cost search
where I is the maximum number of CFL (i).
Each assignment of CFL i to segment j affects three UCS is a tree search algorithm that expands nodes on the
different costs: (1) resource transportation cost from CFL least cost path till an end node is reached. The algorithm,
i to segment j (Tci,j); (2) CFL i renting cost (Rci); and (3) Fig. 2, starts by expanding the root node (No) and adding
the relocation cost of temporary facilities from current CFL all child nodes to unexpanded node frontier. The algorithm
i, to another i*. then selects the least cost child node from the frontier to be
Tci,j accounts for the daily transportation cost of crews, further expanded. This recursive approach is carried out till
equipment and materials from CFL i to segment j. Tci,j is a solution (end node) is reached. UCS guarantees a global
measured using shortest walk distance technique. This optimal solution as it searches all possible solutions of the
technique measures the actual moving distance of resour- problem (Russell and Norvig 2010; Felner 2011). UCS can
ces from CFL i to road segment j. The total Tc for a fea- adequately solve the presented model. At each segment, all
sible solution can be calculated via Eq. (3), which is the the possible assignments of CFLs can be explored as child
product of the variable xi,j by the daily transportation cost nodes. Thus, as the work progresses to the following seg-
(Tcij) and the duration of work in segment j (dj). The ments, the tree will be constructed, and optimal path can be
renting cost of CFL i (Rci) may differ from one CFL to the determined.
other depending on its location and the market renting
prices. The total Rc for a feasible solution is calculated in
the same manner as Tc through Eq. (4).

123
 A. G. Mansour et al.

Fig. 2 UCS algorithm pseudo

Function Uniform Cost-Search returns a solution, or null
code
Frontier: a list containing nodes ready to be expanded
Explored: a list with expanded nodes
Solutions: a list of all possible solutions

Initialize the Frontier using the initial node to expand

Add child nodes to Frontier
Remove initial node from frontier and add it to Explored
Loop do
if Empty(Frontier)? then track all expanded nodes (in Explored) at level d (maximum
depth), get the corresponding least Path-Cost value, and nodes’ parents to provide solutions.
Add each solution in Solutions
else
Choose the lowest Path-Cost node in the frontier to expand
Add resulted child nodes to frontier
Remove the expanded node from frontier and added to explored
Return minimum cost in Solutions

6.2 Illustrative example Table 2 Transportation cost/day

To present the optimization approach for the proposed
problem, an illustrative hypothetical example, shown in
Fig. 3, is utilized. Suppose a 400-m road needs to be
maintained. After scanning the surroundings of the road,
two CFLs (i = 1, 2) were found available to be used with
renting cost (Rci) of $300/day and $400/day, respectively.
The road is divided into two equal segments (j = 1, 2). The
transportation cost of the round trips per day from each
CFL(i) to each segment (j) and total relocation cost from
old CFL i to new CFL i* are shown in Tables 2 and 3,
respectively. The duration of the construction work (dj) in
the road segments j = 1 and j = 2 are 5 and 7 days,
respectively.
Figure 4 shows a tree structure of applying UCS method
to optimize CFL selection of the road. In Fig. 4a, the root
node (No) was expanded leaving the child nodes (N1 and
N2) in the unexpanded frontier. N1 is thus expanded as it is
j=1 j=2
($)
i=1 200 300
i=2 400 150
Table 3 Total relocating cost
i* = 1 i* = 2
($)
i=1 0 500
i=2 600 0
the least cost node. At Fig. 4b, the unexpanded frontier
includes N2, N3 and N4. Accordingly, N2 will be expanded
as it is the least cost node. At Fig. 4c, Nodes N3, N4, N5 and
N6 are in the unexpanded frontier, and N3 will be expanded
as it is the least cost node. Figure 4d presents the solution
as N3 is an end node. The solution would be N1 and N3,
representing x1,1 and x1,2, respectively.
It is noticeable that UCS has a time complexity of O(ij)
where i is the branching factors and j is the depth of the
tree. The presented example has ij solution space which is
four solutions. For a real-life problem with multiple
available CFLs and numerous segments, UCS will require
a significant long computation time to find an optimal
solution. This would hinder the developed model to capture
the stochastic parameters via Monte Carlo simulation as it
will take impractical long computation time. The authors
attempted to overcome this by pruning the tree while
maintaining the optimality of UCS approach.

6.3 Tree pruning

Pruning a search tree is an important step to optimize the

computational efficiency and to avoid unnecessary time
and space complexities. Tree pruning techniques decrease
the tree size by removing redundant branches or sections of
Fig. 3 Hypothetical example

123
Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure maintenance projects using…
Fig. 4 UCS tree of hypothetical
example
the search tree. Such redundant branches should not lead to
an optimum solution, thus transforming a complete tree
into a smaller pruned one. Though tree pruning is not a
newly developed concept and various techniques are
available (Patel and Upadhyay 2012; Song and Ying 2015),
the authors customized the generic tree pruning approach
to fit the problem at hand. Accordingly, this concept of tree
pruning can be applied to the UCS tree to enhance the
model’s efficiency and decrease its processing time.
Consider two nodes N and N’, each of them represents
the same solution state xi,j (i.e., assigning the same CFL i to
the same segment j). However, each node has a different
parent node (i.e., xi,j-1 and x:i,j-1). Thus, though both
parents are from the same segment j - 1, they are using
different CFLs. The cost from the root node (No) to N and
N’ are P(N) and P(N’), respectively.
Since UCS always expands the least cost child node
when facing multiple children, UCS will always choose the
same successor for the same state xi,j, regardless of the
node. For example, since nodes N and N’ represent the
same state, they will provide the same optimal path to its
end node passing through the same child nodes. The cost of
such path (without the cost P) is donated C(N) and C(N’).
Since both paths from N and N’ to the end nodes are the
same, C(N) should be equal to C(N’). To this end, the tree
can be pruned at node N’, if P(N’) C P(N), as the overall
cost of the solution from this node to the end node would
be at best equal to the solution from node N.
Figure 5 presents an example of a complete tree of two
CFLs and four segments, i.e., 16 solutions (24). According
to UCS method, expanding any identical nodes, which
represent the same allocation of CFL i to segment j, will
result in the same successors and the same solution but
with different cost. For example, N4 and N6 are two iden-
tical nodes representing allocation of CFL 2 to road seg-
ment 2. Expanding N4 will result in a least cost path of N10,
and N22, representing a solution of x2,2 = 1, x2,3 = 1 and
x2,4 = 1, respectively. The same solution but with different
cost is resulted from expanding N6 represented by nodes
N6, N14 and N30. Thus, expanding the lower cost node of
the two identical ones (N4 and N6) will result in the lower
cost solution. N6 has a lower cost than its identical node N4.
As such, N6 will be expanded and N4 will be excluded from
the tree. Note that the cost of the path from N4 to N22 (i.e.,
$47–$22 = $25) is the same as N6 to N30 (i.e., $43–
$18 = $25). However, the cost from the No to N4 ($22) is
higher than No to N6 ($18).
This process can be repeated at other identical nodes.
For example, N8, N10, N12 and N14. Accordingly, the pro-
posed tree pruning approach would significantly decrease
the tree size as shown in Fig. 6. The redundant nodes (N4,
N5, N8 and N13) and their branches that will not lead to an
optimum solution were removed from the tree. This trim-
ming decreased the solution space from O (ij) 24 = 16
solutions to O (i2) 22 = 4 solutions. Therefore, at every
iteration, there are at most i2 nodes to choose from.
7 Model automation
The proposed model was coded in Java using NetBeans
IDE 8.1 platform. The coded model requires the number of
segments, available CFLs as well as the work duration for
each segment j, Tci,j between each CFL i and each segment
123

Fig. 5 Complete tree before pruning
Fig. 6 Pruned tree
j, Rci, of each CFL i, and all possible Rlc i,i* between the
different CFLs. The model automatically generates the
search tree and produces ij possible solutions. The model
searches through all possible solutions using the UCS
method and prune the tree as previously discussed. The
outcome of the search is the least path cost representing the
optimum allocation of CFLs to different work segments.
The authors used an 8 GB Ram, 2.00 GHz machine to
verify the model performs as intended. The proposed
model was able to solve the previous discussed illustrative
hypothetical problems and resulted in finding the same
optimum solution in under 1000 ms.
123
A. G. Mansour et al.
8 Case study
A real case study is used to present the model’s ability in
solving real linear infrastructure projects in congested
urban cities. The proposed case study utilizes Salah Salem
road, sketched in Fig. 7, which is one of the most crowded
and vital roads in Cairo, Egypt. Salah Salem is an arterial
road extending from Cairo International Airport to the east
bank of the Nile. It cuts through several neighborhoods and
important locations in Cairo including Heliopolis district,
the Citadel, and Old Cairo. Salah Salem road serves a high
daily traffic volume of private and public transportation
vehicles.
Road maintenance work in Salah Salem road is a perfect
demonstration for the effectiveness of the developed
model. Any construction or maintenance activity will block
the road due to the equipment parked and material storage.
Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure maintenance projects using…
Fig. 7 Salah Salem road—case study
As such the proposed model would be of great help in
determining the optimum CFL for each road segment as
work progresses. In addition, the model helps in decreasing
the congestion of traffic made by the construction works
through avoiding lane rental strategies (Herbsman and
Glagola 1998) that would decrease the traffic flow.
To demonstrate the model’s capabilities, a seven-km
section in the most crowded part of Salah Salem road is
used. The road is divided into 14 segments where each
segment is 500 m, as shown in Fig. 7. It should be noted
that using a 500-m length segment is only an assumption
and practitioners can adjust it based on their needs.
Changing the segments’ length will only impact the num-
ber of segments j which will affect the solution space and
processing time. After scanning the surroundings of the
road, it turned out that there are eight eligible CFLs
available to be used. Table 4 shows the area of each CFL
and the daily Rci. The transportation cost of the round trips
per day from each CFL (i) to each segment (j), total relo-
cation cost from old CFL i to new CFL i*, and the duration
of the construction work (dj) in each of the road segments
are shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7, respectively.
Table 4 CFL areas and daily renting cost (Rci)
CFL i Area (m2)
CFL 1 440
CFL 2 360
CFL 3 500
CFL 4 560
CFL 5 600
CFL 6 630
CFL 7 700
CFL 8 800
On running the model without the proposed pruning
algorithm, the model solved a 5 million solution space
problem (11 segments and 4 CFLs only) in 8 days, which is
an impractical computational time. This is because the
model had to go through all 5 million possible solutions in
order to determine the optimum one. Therefore, the UCS
tree representing the proposed case study (seven-km in
Salah Salem road) must be pruned to decrease the com-
putational time.
8.1 Testing optimality pre and post tree pruning
In order to test the completeness of the model while
applying the pruning algorithm, a comparison of the
model’s results before and after pruning is presented in
Table 8. The table also presents the computation time. The
authors tested the model in incremental steps to better
present the pruning time reduction ability and its impact on
optimality. Table 8 presents three cases with 4 CFLs
serving 7, 10 and 11 construction segments, respectively.
This increased the solution size from 16,000 to 5,000,000
possible CFL assignments. As per Table 8, it can be
noticed that without pruning the tree, UCS solves the
problem in a significant long time, 8 days. The proposed
pruning algorithm, with O(i2), drastically decreased the
computation time to less than 1000 ms. More importantly,
the proposed pruning algorithm did not impact the optimal
solution of the UCS, as it provided the same total cost and
CFL assignments per construction segment.
After proving the significantly higher computational
power of the model using the proposed pruning algorithm,
the model was tested on the whole 14 segments with 8
CFLs serving these segments. Figure 8 shows the model’s
output regarding to the total cost and the optimal assign-
ment of CFLs to each of the 14 segments in the 7 km of
Salah Salem road. The model succeeded in solving the
problem of 4 trillion (814) solution space in under 3000 ms.
This indicates the ability of the model in solving large
solution space problems in significant short time.
8.2 Monte Carlo simulation for stochastic factors
Rci ($/day)
As previously discussed, all the mentioned factors that
1100
affect the model (i.e., resources transportation cost, land
900 renting cost, duration of construction work and facilities
1250 relocation cost) are stochastic in their nature. This is due to
1400 the uncertainties affecting those factors. For example, the
1500 duration of construction work depends on the weather,
1575 efficiency of the equipment and labors. Also, the resources
1750 transportation costs varies depending on the traffic condi-
2000 tions. Land renting cost may differ depending on the
changes in the market prices. However, not all factors have
high diversity. Therefore, the authors selected the most
123
 A. G. Mansour et al.

Table 5 Transportation cost (Tci,i) ($/day)

j=1 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=5 j=6 j=7 j=8 j=9 j = 10 j = 11 j = 12 j = 13 j = 14

i=1 39 189 324 459 594 756 891 1080 1242 1404 1593 1728 1836 1890
i=2 351 486 621 756 891 1026 1215 1296 1431 1566 1701 1836 1971 2106
i=3 122 38 216 351 459 594 729 918 1080 1242 1404 1539 1647 1728
i=4 243 54 81 216 351 486 621 770 891 1053 1215 1323 1431 1512
i=5 324 189 378 243 351 811 676 703 946 1351 1216 1757 1622 1486
i=6 324 189 54 122 257 392 527 662 797 932 1068 1203 1338 1473
i=7 892 757 622 486 351 216 54 189 324 459 595 730 865 1000
i=8 1216 1081 946 811 676 541 405 270 135 270 405 541 676 811

Table 6 Total relocating cost

i* = 1 i* = 2 i* = 3 i* = 4 i* = 5 i* = 6 i* = 7 i* = 8
(Rlci,i*) ($)
i=1 – 110 75 150 175 185 525 650
i=2 243 – 189 135 153 300 500 600
i=3 68 176 – 68 107 110 447 572
i=4 135 190 54 – 35 40 370 495
i=5 180 153 107 35 – 200 385 450
i=6 192 300 110 40 220 – 340 500
i=7 530 500 450 375 390 360 – 160
i=8 650 600 572 500 450 500 160 –

Table 7 Construction work duration (dj) per segment remained deterministic as they did not have significant data
Segments j Duration (days) dj Segments j Duration (days) dj
variation.
To address the stochastic nature of the problem, a Monte
j=1 5 j=8 8 Carlo simulation is integrated with the tree search model.
j=2 7 j=9 7 Monte Carlo simulation is defined as an algorithm that runs
j=3 10 j = 10 6 the model several times with variable input values (i.e.,
j=4 6 j = 11 8 transportation cost or work duration) to capture the
j=5 5 j = 12 7 stochastic nature of the process (Avlijas 2019; Inyim and
j=6 6 j = 13 6 Zhu 2014). The value of each input is chosen randomly for
j=7 7 j = 14 7 each trial or iteration from a pre-defined probability dis-
tribution of the variable (Tokdemir et al. 2019; Avlijas
2019). Therefore, the outcome of the proposed model
would be the most likely assignment of CFLs for each
diverse factors based on their variance (resources trans- construction segment that achieves the optimal value for
portation cost and duration of construction work) to be the the objective function in Eq. (6).
stochastic factors of the model while the other factors

Table 8 Comparison between before trimming and after trimming processing time
Solution space Optimum solution Optimum total cost ($) Processing time
Before trimming After trimming

16,000 x1,1; x1,2; x1,3; x1,4; x1,5; x3,6; x3,7 71,774 6s Under 1000 ms
1,000,000 x1,1; x1,2; x1,3; x1,4; x1,5; x3,6; x3,7; x3,8; x4,9; x4,10 119,927 7.5 h Under 1000 ms
5,000,000 x1,1; x1,2; x1,3; x1,4; x1,5; x3,6; x3,7; x3,8; x4,9; x4,10 x4,11 140,847 8 days Under 1000 ms

123
Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure maintenance projects using…

it CFL 7 for segments 7–14. This provided a total cost of

$186,815.

9 Discussion

Through this paper, the authors presented a model that

guarantees optimal CFL assignment for each segment in an
urban linear infrastructure project through a tree search
approach. The problem domain is trivial in case of con-
struction projects in the suburbs or rural areas where ade-
quate shoulder lanes and open fields that can be used to
store equipment and other temporary facilities. Neverthe-
less, for densely populated urban cities, such problem may
hinder the success of the linear project and may impact the
Fig. 8 Case study model’s solution
proper utilization of the existing infrastructure. To this end,
the authors argue that the decision makers should integrate
The authors utilized the aforementioned case study to
such approach in planning the construction and mainte-
present the integration of Monte Carlo simulation into the
nance of linear infrastructure projects in urban cities.
tree search model. First, a probability distribution was
Decision makers should account for multiple factors
assigned for each probabilistic factor of the four mentioned
when utilizing the proposed model. First, the number and
factors (Tci,j; Rci,j; Rlci,i*; and dj) based on log-normal
size of segments impact the model output. The smaller the
distribution (Avlijas 2019; Wall 1997; Yang 2005). The
segment sizes (thus, larger number of segments), the more
probability distributions were based on real data and esti-
accurate the optimal CFL assignment would be. This would
mates based on the most likely scenarios. The authors then
require significantly longer time for data entry and simu-
selected the most diverse factors based on their variance
lation runs. Also, accurate data collection for representing
while the other factors remained deterministic as they did
the stochastic factors highly impacts the accuracy of the
not have significant data variation. The proposed search
total cost and CFL assignments.
model with the pruning algorithm was then utilized to run
More importantly, the proposed tree pruning algorithm
multiple simulation based on the stochastic inputs of the
provides a significant contribution to the body of knowl-
various factors.
edge. The pruning algorithm converts the searchable tree
To produce statistically accurate and reliable results, the
size from O(ij) to O(i2). As such, the presented approach
minimum number of required simulation runs to achieve a
can be utilized to find global optimal solution in reasonable
95% degree of confidence and maximum error band of
time without the need for meta-heuristic near optimal
± $100 was calculated using Eq. (7) (Hahn 1972). Thus,
techniques. Nevertheless, modelers should notice that the
the minimum statistically significant sample size in the
proposed problem is 20,000 simulation run.
" #
Zð1þcÞ  r 2
2
nmin ¼ ð7Þ
E

where nmin is the minimum sample size, c is the degree of

confidence, E is the maximum allowable error and r is an
initial estimated value for standard deviation.
To this end, the integration of the proposed tree search
approach into a Monte Carlo simulation generated a pow-
erful tool capable of finding the global optimum solution
for stochastic problems. The model was able to find the
solution with a 95% degree of confidence for the afore-
mentioned case study in under 60,000 ms. According to the
simulation results given in Fig. 9, the optimum solution for
the problem is to assign CFL 1 to segments 1–5, then
transport the TFs to CFL 3 for segment 6, and finally move Fig. 9 Optimal CFL assignment for case study via Monte Carlo
simulation

123

tree pruning algorithm does not impact the optimality of
UCS due the properties of the problem domain. As this is
an assignment problem with multiple similar states reached
through various paths, the pruning algorithm can be uti-
lized with no impact on the UCS optimality. This might not
be true for all problems. Other applications for the UCS
with the proposed pruning algorithm should be investi-
gated, for example minimum travel distance between two
nodes in a network graph, or optimal resource allocation in
a scheduling problem.
10 Conclusion and future work
A CFL selection model was developed to assist planners
and decision makers in placing temporary facilities on site
for urban linear infrastructure projects in congested cities.
The developed model seeks global optimum CFL for each
road segment throughout the work operations. The model
was also designed to consider and capture the stochastic
factors and uncertainties to practically comply with the
nature of linear infrastructure projects. The model used
UCS method as an optimization technique and utilized
Monte Carlo simulation to produce a global optimum
solution with a 95% degree of confidence. The CFL
assignment is an exponential problem (ij). Therefore, a tree
pruning algorithm was utilized to convert the problem into
a polynomial problem (i2). Thus, the presented tree pruning
algorithm significantly enhanced the model computational
time, with no impact on the UCS optimality, allowing it to
solve larger solution space problems. As such, the proposed
model has the potential to impact the success of the
infrastructure projects in urban cities through applying it at
the planning phase.
Optimal CFL per segment was evaluated through min-
imizing resources transportation cost, CFL renting cost and
facilities’ relocation cost. A real case study was carried out
to present the model’s ability in solving real linear infras-
tructure projects in congested urban cities. Thus, the
model’s results illustrated its powerful capabilities in
finding the global optimal solution of a large solution space
problem (4 trillion possible solutions) in under 3000 ms
using an 8 GB Ram, 2.00 GHz machine. The developed
model capabilities have a significant potential in planning
the construction and maintenance of linear infrastructure
projects in urban cities. In addition, the presented UCS
algorithm along with the tree pruning algorithm could be of
great help in other engineering problems. However, this
needs further investigations in future work along with other
limitations in the current model. These limitations include
(1) preventing the allocation of more than one CFLs to
different road segments at the same time, (2) considering
only minimization of total cost, (3) approximating
123
A. G. Mansour et al.
resources transportation routes or paths as direct routes
only and (4) the model does not reflect its impact to traffic
congestion and the society. To address these limitations,
the model should be expanded in the future work to address
working multiple segments at the same time, considering a
tradeoff between maximizing site safety and minimization
of total cost, using agent based modeling for resources
transportation routes and, finally, introducing a new per-
formance metric to measure and quantify the model’s
impact on decreasing traffic interruptions and user’s cost.
Funding Not applicable.
Availability of data and material All the available data that support
the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request.
Code availability The developed code is available from the corre-
sponding authors upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors do not have any competing interest in
the presented results.
References
Abotaleb I, Nassar K, Hosny O (2016) Layout optimization of
construction site facilities with dynamic freeform geometric
representations. Autom Constr 66:15–28
Avlijas G (2019) Examining the value of Monte Carlo simulation for
project time management. J Sustain Bus Manag Solut Emerg
Econ 24(1):11–21
Cheng MY, O’Connor JT (1996) ArcSite: enhanced GIS for
construction site layout. J Constr Eng Manag 122:329–336
Cheung S-O, Tong TK-L, Tam C-M (2002) Site pre-cast yard layout
arrangement through genetic algorithms. Autom Constr
11:35–46
Eid M, Elbeltagi E, El-Adaway IH (2019) Multi-objective simulta-
neous optimization for linear projects scheduling. In: The 2019
ASCE international conference on computing in civil engineer-
ing, Atlanta, Georgia, pp 561–568
Elbeltagi E, Hegazy T, Hosny AH, Eldosouky A (2001) Schedule-
dependent evolution of site layout planning. Constr Manag Econ
19:689–697
Elbeltagi E, Hegazy T, Eldosouky A (2004) Dynamic layout of
construction temporary facilities considering safety. J Constr
Eng Manag 130:534–541
El-Rayes K, Khalafallah A (2005) Trade-off between safety and cost
in planning construction site layouts. J Constr Eng Manag
131:1186–1195
El-Rayes K, Said H (2009) Dynamic site layout planning using
approximate dynamic programming. J Comput Civ Eng
23:119–127
Farmakis PM, Chassiakos AP (2018) Genetic algorithm optimization
for dynamic construction site layout planning. Organ Technol
Manag Constr Int J 10:1655–1664
Felner A (2011) Position paper: Dijkstra’s algorithm versus uniform
cost search or a case against Dijkstra’s algorithm. In:
Construction facilities location selection for urban linear infrastructure maintenance projects using…
Proceedings, the fourth international symposium on combinato-
rial search (SoCS-2011), pp 47–51
Hahn G (1972) Sample sizes for Monte Carlo simulation. IEEE Trans
Syst Man Cybern 2(5):678–680
Herbsman ZJ, Glagola CR (1998) Lane rental-innovative way to
reduce road conrtuction time. J Constr Eng Manag
124(5):411–417
Ibaraki T (1975) Theoretical comparisons of search strategies in
branch-and-bound algorithms. Int J Comput Inf Sci
5(4):315–344
Inyim P, Zhu Y (2014) Application of Monte Carlo simulation and
optimization to multi-objective analysis of sustainable building
designs. In: The 2014 international conference on computing in
civil and building engineering, Orlando, Florida, pp 2009–2016
Kaveh A, Khanzadi M, Alipour M, Moghadd MR (2016) Construc-
tion site layout planning using two new meta-heuristic algo-
rithms. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 40(4):263–275
Kuffner J (2004) Efficient optimal search of uniform-cost grids and
lattices. In: Proceedings of 2004 IEEE/RSJ international con-
ference on intelligent robots and systems, Sendai, Japan,
pp 1946–1951
Mansour A, Eid M, Elbeltagi E (2019) Optimal construction facilities
location selection for linear infrastructure projects. In: The 2019
ASCE international conference on computing in civil engineer-
ing, Atlanta, Georgia, pp 482–490
Moselhi O, Hassanein A (2003) Optimized scheduling of linear
projects. J Constr Eng Manag 129(6):664–673
Nopiah ZM, Khairir MI, Abdullah S, Baharin MN, Arifin A (2010)
Time complexity analysis of the genetic algorithm clustering
method. In: Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international
conference on signal processing, robotics and automation,
ISPRA 10, pp 171–176
Osman HM, Georgy ME, Ibrahim ME (2003) A hybrid CAD-based
construction site layout planning system using genetic algo-
rithms. Autom Constr 12:749–764
Patel N, Upadhyay S (2012) Study of various decision tree pruning
methods with their empirical comparison in WEKA. Int J
Comput Appl 60:20–25
View publication stats
Patil AD, Joshi DA (2013) A review paper on construction site layout
planning. Int J Innov Eng Technol 3:4
Rahim R, Dijaya R, Multazam MT, Daengs A. Sudrajat D (2019)
Puzzle game solving with breadth first search algorithm. In: 4th
annual applied science and engineering conference
RazaviAlavi S, AbouRizk S (2017) Site layout and construction plan
optimization using an integrated genetic algorithm simulation
framework. J Comput Civ Eng 31:04017011
Russell J, Norvig P (2010) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach,
3rd edn. Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River, p 07458
Song YY, Ying LU (2015) Decision tree methods: applications for
classification and prediction. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry
27(2):130–135
Sun Y, Wang J, He L, Song J (2017) Iterative uniform-cost search of
active antenna group selection for generalised spatial modula-
tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on
communications (ICC), pp 1–6, May 2017
Tokdemir OB, Erol H, Dikmen I (2019) Delay risk assessment of
repetitive construction projects using line-of-balance scheduling
and monte carlo simulation. J Constr Eng Manag 145(2):1–12
Tommelein ID, Levitt RE, Hayes Roth B (1992) SightPlan model for
site layout. J Constr Eng Manag 118:749–766
Wall D (1997) Distributions and correlations in Monte Carlo
simulation. Constr Manag Econ 15:241–258
Yahya M, Saka MP (2014) Construction site layout planning using
multi-objective artificial bee colony algorithm with Levy flights.
Autom Constr 38:14–29
Yang IT (2005) Simulation-based estimation for correlated cost
elements. Int J Project Manag 23:275–282
Zouein PP, Harmanani H, Hajar A (2002) Genetic algorithm for
solving site layout problem with unequal-size and constrained
facilities. J Comput Civ Eng 16:143–151
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123