Automated Schedule Updates Using As-Built Data and A 4D Building Information Model

Son, H., Kim, C., and Cho, Y. (2017).
"Automated Schedule Update using AS-Built Data and 4D Building Information Model." ASCE
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33, Issue 4, July. dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000528
Automated Schedule Updates Using As-Built Data and a 4D

Building Information Model
Hyojoo Son1; Changwan Kim, A.M.ASCE2; and Yong Kwon Cho, M.ASCE3
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Chung-Ang Univ., Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Seoul 06974, Korea. E-mail:
hjosn0908@live.cau.ac.kr
2
Professor, Chung-Ang Univ., Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Seoul 06974, Korea (corresponding author).
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7342-0829. E-mail: changwan@cau.ac.kr
3
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Mason Building 4140A, 790 Atlantic Dr., Atlanta, GA 30332. E-mail: yong.cho@ce.gatech.edu
Abstract: A schedule update is defined as a process for measuring the status of a project, predicting the date of its completion, and providing
project managers with critical schedule information. The updated schedule information helps project managers evaluate their projects and
take appropriate actions that will enable them to finish projects on time. In current practice, most schedule-update processes are performed
manually, require considerable time and effort, and rely on subjective experience. Thisstudy proposes data flow and develops a system that
updates schedules automatically through the use of project-management software and provides critical schedule information to project
managers. The proposed system is based on the use of three-dimensional (3D) point-cloud data from construction sites and a four-
dimensional (4D) model that includes an as-planned schedule. To verify the performance of the system developed in this study, a case study
based on an actual construction site was conducted. The results show that the proposed system contributes to the automation of all steps
involved in schedule updating. With automatic schedule updates, the practice can be made more efficient, and the process of schedule
updating can be performed in a reliable and objective manner. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000528. © 2017 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Introduction
A schedule update is defined as a process for measuring the status of a project and predicting the date of its completion (Winter and
Everenosoglu 2011). The use of schedule updates can provide project managers with critical schedule information that helps them evaluate
and control projects and ensure that the construction finishes on time (Chen et al. 2010). The information that helps evaluate and control a
project includes the status of the project, start and completion dates of individual activities, and details regarding activities to which the
project manager should pay special attention (PMI 2008; Elazouni and Salem 2011). The critical schedule information provided through
schedule updates enhances communication between the participants in a project and helps them make decisions that can minimize disputes
(Hwang and Leong 2013; Jan et al. 2013). In addition, such information provides a useful index for measuring the performance of a project
(Liu and Shih 2009) and can be used as the basic data source for analysis of the cause of delays during construction (Bubshait and
Cunningham 1998; Kim et al. 2005), thereby helping project managers to take appropriate actions that would enable them to finish projects
on time. In this regard, updating the project schedule by periodic monitoring is vital to ensure a project proceeds as planned and to avoid
going over budget and having disputes (Hwang and Leong 2013; Hwang et al. 2013).
Currently, the main schedule-update processes are performed manually. These processes involve collecting as-built data from sites,
analyzing the collected as-built data and comparing them with the planned progress, identifying the differences between the asbuilt progress
and as-planned progress, and then modifying the schedule (Kiziltas and Akinci 2005; Liu and Shih 2009; Olawale and Sun 2013). Because
the major processes are performed manually, considerable time is required to acquire and analyze data. In fact, project managers spend 30–
50% of their working hours on collection and analysis of as-built data from sites (McCulloch 1997), requiring considerable efforts by project
managers (Bell and McCullouch 1988; Fan et al. 2003). The reliability of the results of schedule updates depends on the subjective judgment
of the persons who collect them (Liu et al. 1995). Consequently, the processes undertaken in schedule updates are not performed efficiently,
objectively, and/or rapidly (Turkan et al. 2012).
To solve the problems that occur due to manual practices, various studies have been conducted to automate some of the scheduleupdate
processes [e.g., Chin et al. (2008); Rebolj et al. (2008); Bosche et al. (2009); Bosche (2010); Golparvar-Fard et al. (2009), (2015); Ibrahim
et al. (2009); Zhang et al. (2009); Turkan et al. (2012); Kim et al. (2013a)]. These studies showed that the use of data-collection technologies
[e.g., radio-frequency identification (RFID) sensors, digital cameras, and laser scanners] and building information models (BIMs), which
are considered emerging information and communication technologies (Lu et al. 2015), can improve the efficiency of collecting as-built
data from a site and automate the process of analyzing the collected data and comparing them with the planned progress. However, most of
these studies were limited to identifying the differences between actual progress and planned progress—namely, the calculation of actual
progress of each ongoing activity. Although it is possible to provide information on actual progress, using the information and modifying
the schedule is still a manual process because of a lack of consideration (in supporting the whole process of updating the schedule) for
integration with project-scheduling software in use, such as Microsoft Project or Oracle Primavera (Liberatore et al. 2001; Bettemir and
Son, H., Kim, C., and Cho, Y. (2017). "Automated Schedule Update using AS-Built Data and 4D Building Information Model." ASCE
Sonmez 2015; Menesi and Hegazy 2015). To automate the whole process of updating the schedule, as-built data reflecting the current status
of a construction site and as-planned data (e.g., designed model and planned schedule) need to be imported and analyzed in a flow. In
addition, the updated schedule is exchangeable with project-scheduling software, and the critical schedule information [e.g., the expected
completion date of the overall project, the critical path, and the difference(s) from the as-planned schedule] to which the project manager
should pay special attention needs to be provided in an efficient manner. Otherwise, some of the schedule-update processes still require
much manual effort by the responsible project manager (Rebolj et al. 2008; Dang and Bargstädt 2016).
The aim of this study is to propose data flow and develop a system that automatically updates schedules through the use of
projectmanagement software—in particular, Microsoft Project, which is one of the well-known project-scheduling tools—and generate and
display critical schedule information regarding the activities to which the project manager should pay special attention. To measure the
actual progress, the method proposed by Kim et al. (2013a) is applied. However, the three-dimensional (3D) registration method proposed
by Kim et al. (2013a) was improved upon so that it would be suitable for large-scale 3D point clouds. In addition, this study proposes a new
method that can be used to identify the status of individual activities, update the schedule, and provide critical schedule information. Once
collecting as-built data from a construction site is done, the proposed system uses 3D point-cloud data from a construction site and a four-
dimensional (4D) model that includes an as-planned schedule as input data. Then, the proposed system automatically compares the planned
progress against the actual progress on each component, measuring the actual progress on each activity, updating the start and finish dates
for each activity, and providing critical schedule information.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The “Related Work” section reviews existing studies on progress measurement and the
automation of schedule updates. The “Proposed ScheduleUpdate System” section describes the proposed schedule-update system in detail.
The tested results of the proposed system on an actual construction project and a discussion thereof are presented in the “Case Study” section.
Last, the “Conclusion” concludes the paper and points to limitations of the method proposed in this study.
Related Work
To be more specific, the schedule update involves comparing asbuilt data from a construction site with the as-planned model, calculation of
the actual progress of each ongoing activity, and updating and reflecting the start and finish dates for each activity and providing critical
schedule information (Kiziltas and Akinci 2005). Most previous studies on automating some of the scheduleupdate processes have focused
on calculation and measurement of actual progress of each ongoing activity through use of stateof-the-art sensors, such as RFID sensors,
digital cameras, and laser scanners. Chin et al. (2008) proposed a method of measuring progress by attaching RFID tags to individual steel
components and associating them with components in a 4D computer-aided design (CAD) model. In this approach, the RFID tags are
scanned by the operator when the steel components are installed to enable identification of the construction activities pertaining to them.
When the tags are scanned, the weight is checked by identifying the weights of the components associated with the relevant tags in the
schedule-related 4D CAD model. The actual progress is measured by adding up the weights of the tagged components by date. Then the
construction progress is measured by comparing the total measured weight to the total planned weight. When the RFID system is used, the
data analysis can be conducted in this manner, but this method does not readily lend itself to automation of the data collection, which limits
its functionality. Thus, methods using a digital camera or laser scanner to improve the efficiency of the processes of data collection and
analysis have recently been proposed.
Because images obtained using a digital camera and 3D pointcloud data obtained with a laser scanner do not contain semantic information,
progress measurement is carried out after registering the camera images (or point-cloud data) to a 3D, 4D, or BIM that contains semantic
information and then comparing the results. Shih and Wang (2004) introduced an information flow of manually measuring progress from
the synthesized view of the 4D models overlaid with the 3D point cloud acquired from the laser scanner. Rebolj et al. (2008) proposed a
method of recognizing structural components after superimposing site images on a view of a 3D model. First, the 3D (model-view) image
of the building is superimposed on the camera (site) view within the same time frame. Then, with user intervention, the portion of the site
image that corresponds to the structural components contained in it is extracted. Finally, each extracted image is compared to the 3D model-
view image to determine which of the planned structural components have already been constructed and which have not. Ibrahim et al.
(2009) proposed a method for recognizing the constructed components by comparing images obtained from a fixed position with a 3D
model. First, a sequence of images, acquired at different times, is obtained from a fixed position. Then, the differences between pairs of
consecutive images are recognized, and the structural components for which construction is not yet completed are identified by comparing
the areas where there are differences from the 3D as-planned model. The constructed components are inferred to be those for which there
are no such differences. Similar to the method described by Ibrahim et al. (2009), Zhang et al. (2009) measured progress by recognizing
differences between images to identify the constructed components and compare them with as-planned models.
Golparvar-Fard et al. (2009) used a large number of images taken by a digital camera to recognize the constructed components. They
generated a 3D point cloud by using a large number of images acquired by the structure-from-motion technique. Then, they compared the
3D point cloud to a 4D model that included an as-planned schedule to identify the constructed components. Golparvar-Fard et al. (2015)
used a probabilistic model to measure progress on individual structural components and continued with follow-up research on how to
calculate the differences between the actual and planned schedules. Kim et al. (2013a) proposed a method for measuring construction
progress with a 3D point cloud obtained with a laser scanner and a 4D BIM. Once the as-built data are registered with the as-planned model,
the 3D point cloud is compared to the 4D model to identify the constructed components. They proposed an additional process for asbuilt
status revision to determine whether the statuses of the identified components are mutually consistent and to modify inaccurate statuses that
are due to incompleteness of the 3D point-cloud data set. By acquiring as-built data from a construction site and comparing the as-built data
to the as-planned data, these studies contributed to the automation of progress measurement, which is an integral aspect of schedule updating.
Turkan et al. (2012) proposed a method to update the start and finish dates of each activity using a 3D point cloud and a 3D model
integrated with the as-planned schedule. The object-recognition algorithm proposed by Bosche et al. (2009) was used to recognize the
constructed components. The actual progress on each activity was measured by computing the ratio of actual constructed components to
those that were intended to be constructed. These measurements were used to update the start and finish dates of each activity in the
developed system. This study demonstrated the potential for automation of updating the start and finish dates for individual activities.
However, these updated start and finish dates were not compatible with the ones generated by major project-scheduling software, such as
Microsoft Project or Oracle Primavera. Even if they had been compatible, these data would have had low utility for the project unless they
had been provided in a form that project managers could easily utilize. To use the data and automate modification of the schedule, it is
necessary to consider integration of the process with such project-scheduling software in practice to support the whole process of updating
the schedule.
Proposed Schedule-Update System
This study proposes a system for automated schedule updates. The system automatically updates the schedule through the use of project-
management software—in particular, Microsoft Project, a general tool used for project scheduling that is available from the Microsoft
Corporation of Redmond, Washington. This tool provides the project manager with critical schedule information.
The proposed schedule-update system consists of two parts. First, the actual construction progress of each activity is measured. For this
purpose, collected as-built data for the building under construction are compared with the 4D as-planned model. The comparison consists
of 3D registration and object matching. The 3D registration process used in this study improves upon that proposed by Kim et al. (2013a).
Their automated 3D registration method can be applied efficiently to small point clouds, whereas this study’s proposed method can align a
large set of as-built data with an asplanned model. To determine whether or not a given structural component has already been constructed—
based on a comparison of the aligned as-built data with the as-planned model—the proposed method applies the object-matching method
devised by Kim et al. (2013a), which is an improvement over the methods proposed by Bosche et al. (2009) and Golparvar-Fard et al. (2009),
even in the presence of occlusions. In thestudy by Kimet al. (2013a), a revision process was proposed—based on the sequence of activity
execution and the topological connectivity between structural components— to modify the inaccurate as-built status of a component if that
inaccuracy was due to an incomplete data set. For more details regarding the measurement process, please see Kim et al. (2013a).
In the schedule-update system proposed here, once the actual progress is determined according to the physical measurements, the progress
information is automatically input to the projectmanagement software—namely, Microsoft Project—which automatically updates the
relevant schedule(s). In Microsoft Project, the schedule is reformulated using the actual progress of each activity based on the critical-path
method, which considers logical relationships or dependencies between activities (Ozcan-Deniz et al. 2012). Finally, the system generates
and displays critical schedule information as well as details of the activities to which the project manager should pay special attention. The
critical schedule information includes the state of the project, the expected completion date of the overall project, the critical path, and the
difference(s) from the as-planned schedule.
Fig. 1 illustrates data flow among the proposed schedule-update system, project-scheduling software (Microsoft Project here), and related
software in handling as-built data; analyzing the collected data; and comparing them with planned progress. The main input that will need
to be prepared is the as-planned schedule. The asplanned schedule is saved as a .mpp file, which can be created in any version of Microsoft
Project. Then, an updated schedule—the main output—is automatically produced and saved in .mpp file format. As-built data and a 4D BIM
model of the project are used for this purpose. The as-built data acquired using the laser scanners are processed (see “As-Built Data
Collection”) and saved in the form of a .txt file. The file contains an as-built 3D point cloud with coordinates (x, y, z). The 4D BIM model
is made by linking the 3D BIM model (here, Autodesk Revit software was used) to the as-planned schedule information. In this study, a 4D
BIM model was made in Synchro by mapping the building components designed in the 3D BIM model to the activities, including the tasks
of constructing the building components. Then, the 4D BIM model was exported in .ifc file format. BuildingSMART International Ltd.
(Camberley, U.K.) developed the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) format as an international information exchange standard. An IFC file
contains information on the predefined properties of the building components. From the IFC file, the as-planned BIM model can be retrieved
by extracting the geometric data of each building component and the asplanned schedule data for a specific scan date. When the users
execute the proposed system, a graphical user interface (GUI) opens with the start page. Then, by clicking the create button, users can type
the scan date in the form of mm/dd/yyyy and choose the files (the as-built data in .txt format and 4D BIM model in .ifc format). After the
project is created, when users click the analyze button, popup windows open for a local region-based, as-built point cloud and an as-planned
BIM registration (see “Comparison of As-Built Data with As-Planned Model”). In the pop-up windows, users can select three points from
the as-built data, together with the corresponding three points from the 3D pointcloud for the as-planned model.
After the user selects a total of three pairs of points, the system asks whether to proceed. If users choose to proceed, then the proposed
system automatically performs the series of processes to (1) register the as-built point cloud and as-planned BIM and object matching, (2)
measure the actual progress of each component and the actual progress on each activity, (3) update the start and finish dates for each activity,
and (4) provide critical schedule information. After the series of processes is completed, the system writes and saves new files in the .mpp
and .ifc formats with the updated schedule. Here, the updated schedule is written and saved in both .ifc format and .mpp format so the
updated 4D BIM model can be used again in the next schedule update. Also, the system displays critical schedule information o btained
through the schedule update on the GUI. Fig. 2 illustrates the process of the proposed schedule-update method.
As-Built Data Collection

The schedule update reflects only the construction site changes that occurred since the last update. In the method proposed here, those
changes (in the as-built data) need to be acquired using a laser scanner on the construction site. A scan is necessary for the newly constructed
component; hence, the time required to acquire the as-built data is reduced. The 3D registration and object-matching methods make it
possible for the 3D point cloud to be acquired using only ongoing activities; nevertheless, several scans must be performed to monitor the
progress of an entire construction site. In this study, the n-point registration method was adapted to merge 3D point clouds acquired from
different scans. With this method, the user first selects three or more points that are common to a given pair of 3D cloud points; then, the
selected points are used to calculate a transformation matrix that can be applied to obtain the merged point cloud. This method can be
implemented without much difficulty by using commercial software, such as Cyclone from Leica Geosystems. The merged 3D point cloud
includes not only the target site, but also the surrounding portion of the construction site. It is unnecessary to include the 3D point clouds
that are not relevant to the target site, because such inclusion merely increases the amount of time required to process the data. To extract
only the 3D point cloud for a given site, a bounding box is formed around the periphery in Cyclone, and then the portion of the 3D point
cloud within the bounding box is extracted from the merged 3D point cloud.
Fig.1. Proposed data flow and system for automated schedule updates
Construction Progress Measurement

Comparison of As-Built Data with As-Planned Model Comparing the as-built data with the as-planned model determines whether each
component was constructed as of the scan date. The comparison requires registration, which is necessary whenever data from different
sources are compared (Sehgal et al. 2010). Kim et al. (2013a) proposed a 3D registration method that includes structural component detection,
preprocessing, global registration, and local registration. Their global registration is based on principal component analysis (PCA), and their
local registration is based on the Levenberg-Marquardt iterative closest point (LM-ICP) analysis proposed by Fitzgibbon (2003). The 3D
registration method proposed by Kim et al. (2013b) provides consistent registration results for small point clouds despite difficulties, such
as density variations, noisy data, and multiple objects; however, it requires the user to appropriately specify the density of the data points in
the resampling process. However, because the density of data affects the accuracy of 3D registration, it is important to choose an appropriate
density (Benjemaa and Schmitt 1999; Kohoutek et al. 2013; Kim et al. 2013b). If the density is too low, the details inherent in the data
disappear, causing 3D registration errors. In contrast, if the density is significantly increased, it takes too much time to process the data.
Therefore, it is necessary to use a method that retains an adequate amount of detail inherent in the 3D point-cloud data, so that the registration
can be done rapidly but without loss of accuracy.
This study proposes a local region-based, as-built point cloud and as-planned BIM registration method. The method is based on the local
regions from which the 3D points are extracted, corresponding to both the as-built data and the 4D as-planned model. The feasibility of
extracting the portion of the point cloud that contains the relevant data for registration has been proved (Weinmann and Jutzi 2011). Knowing
the correspondence between the points in the as-built data and those in the as-planned model may enable the registration process to be
completed quickly (Sehgal et al. 2010). Additionally, this method addresses the practical challenges presented by occlusions and complex
3D point clouds (Unnikrishnan and Hebert 2008).
A detailed explanation of the proposed registration method is as follows. The first step is to convert a portion of the as-planned model,
which was to be completed by the scan date, into a point cloud. Users select three points from the as-built data together with the three points
from the 3D point cloud for the as-planned model that corresponds to them. Then, the three local regions are determined by using those
three pairs of points (one point for each local region) and Euclidean distance. The selected point for each local region is considered to be
the center of that region, and all the data points that lie within a certain distance (R) from the selected point are considered to be the data for
that local region. Fig. 3 shows an example of the determination of a local region for the as-built data and the corresponding local region for
the as-planned model. Once the user selects certain points from the as-built data [Fig. 3(a)] and the 3D point cloud for the as-planned model
[Fig. 3(b)], each local region for the as-built data and the corresponding local region for the as-planned model are determined by a sphere
with a specific radius (R) around each of them. It is difficult to select such pairs of local regions with a fully automated process, because as-
built data acquired from a construction site can represent many similar objects. Therefore, to overcome this problem, this study proposes
the manual selection of points.
The data extracted from a given local region of the as-built data and the data extracted from the corresponding local region of the
As-Planned Schedule
(.mpp)
Retrieving As-Planned Model on As-Built Data on

Specific Date Specific Date (.txt)
As-built data collection
Local Region-based Registration

4D BIM model
(.ifc)
Object Matching
Comparison of as-built data with the as-planned model
Calculation of Actual Progress on

Each Activity
Calculation of Difference
Between Actual and Planned
Progresses on Each Activity
Calculation of actual progress
Update Actual Progress to Updated

Microsoft Project Actual Schedule (.mpp and .ifc)
Generate Critical Schedule Critical Schedule

Information Information
Schedule update and visualization
Fig.2. Proposed process for automated schedule updates
asplanned model have a certain 3D region in common, although the two data sets are not exactly identical. Using the sets of 3D points for
each such pair of local regions, the system performs the global registration based on PCA and the local registration based on LMICP. From
the results of the global registration and local registration, the system calculates the rotation and translation vectors of the as-built data
relative to the as-planned model. Finally, by applying the calculated vectors to the as-built data, the coordinates of the asbuilt data points
are specified in the coordinate system of the asplanned model. A detailed description of the global registration (based on PCA) and local
registration (based on LM-ICP) can be found in the study by Kim et al. (2013b).
To determine whether or not a given structural component has been constructed—based on the aligned as-built data and the asplanned
model—the system applies the object-matching method proposed by Kim et al. (2013a). That method has proven to be capable of performing
object matching to a high degree of accuracy, even when occlusion occurs. After analyzing the as-built status of each structural component,
the construction information of each recognized component is compared with that of the extracted portion of the model that was planned to
be completed by the scan date. As a result of the comparison, the individual components are divided into one of the following four categories:
(1) components that were planned but not constructed by the scan date, (2) components that were constructed by the scan date as planned,
(3) components that were not planned to be constructed by the scan date but were constructed by the scan date, and (4) components that
were neither planned nor constructed by the scan date.
Fig. 3. Local region determination: (a) local region for as-built data; (b) local region for as-planned model [Note: Once certain points are selected
by a user, each local region (a sphere with a specific radius, R) is generated around each of them]
Calculation of Actual Progress
The actual progress on each activity is defined as the ratio of the actual construction performed to the construction planned, expressed as a
percentage. The most reliable and relatively objective method for calculating the actual quantity of work performed is to physically measure
the actual constructed components (Thomas and Mathews 1986; Jung and Kang 2007). Accordingly, this study proposes theuse of physical
measurements of thefour types of components (described in the previous section) to measure the actual progress on each activity. The
pseudocode for the calculation of actual progress is as follows.
Algorithm 1 Pseudocode for Calculation of Actual Progress. Input: For each activity (Ak), k ¼ 1;2;3;:::;l, where l is the total number of
activities, and for every component (Ckm) related to Ak, m ¼ 1;2;3;:::;nk, where nk is the total number of components related to Ak: the actual
status (Tkm 2 ½ 0;1) of Ckm and the expected status (Ekm 2 ½ 0;1) of Ckm.
Output: The actual progress (Vk) on each activity (Ak), k ¼ 1;2;3;:::;l.
1. For activity Ak, k ¼ 1;2;3;:::;l
2. For related component Ckm, m ¼ 1;2;3;:::;nk
3. Status of deviation on component Ckm is

Skm ¼ 8>><011;;; if Tkm ¼ 0; Ekm ¼ 1
if Ekm ¼ 1
Tkm ¼ 1;
if Ekm ¼ 0
if Tkm ¼ 1;
Ekm ¼ 0
4. End for>>: 0; Tkm ¼ 0;
5. Status of deviation on activity Ak is Dk ¼ ðPnmk1 SkmÞ=nk 100

6. Planned progress on Ak is Pk ¼ scandate startdate= plannedduration 100
7. Actual progress on Ak is Vk ¼ Pk þ Dk
8. End for
To calculate the difference between the actual and planned progress on each activity, the first step is to recognize the components that
are being constructed later or earlier than planned. This process involves comparing the plan (what should and should not have been
constructed by that time) with the reality on the ground (what has actually been constructed). Then, the system measures those discrepancies
by computing the difference between the number of components for which actual progress is ahead of schedule and the number for which
actual progress is behind schedule, and then expressing the difference as a percentage of the total number of components. The last step in
determining the actual progress of each activity is to add the result of the aforementioned computation to the progress in terms of time,
where the latter is defined as the percentage of the total planned duration of the activity that has actually occurred as of the current scan date.
Schedule Update and Visualization

A schedule update assesses the project status and predicts when the project will be completed. To accomplish those tasks, the actual start
date and finish date are projected according to the actual progress on each activity. Then, the start date and finish date of successive activities
can be updated. Evaluating the predecessor–successor relationship between activities enables the entire project schedule to be updated. The
schedule-updating system proposed in this study generates the necessary data for use by the schedule-update function of project-scheduling
software, such as Microsoft Project. The input data that are needed for the schedule-update function include the progress on each activity
and the date of each schedule update for that activity. To this end, the system automatically generates a text file that reflects the actual
progress on each activity. In addition, to obtain the date of the schedule update, the user enters the current scan date into the system, and
that date is automatically entered into Microsoft Project.
All processes involved in updating the schedule are performed automatically, including importing the actual progress generated by
Microsoft Project, performing the schedule update function based on the scan date entered, and exporting the updated schedule to the system.
First, a text file that contains the actual progress of each activity is imported into Microsoft Project. Then, the actual progress, defined as the
percentage complete, is entered for each activity. Finally, through the schedule-update function in Microsoft Project, the start date and finish
date of each activity are updated, based on the progress of each activity up to the scan date. The activity name, duration of activity,
predecessor–successor relation, actual start date, actual finish date, free slack, total slack, and actual progress are all included in the generated
text file.
The schedule update allows project managers to see current, accurate start and finish dates for each activity as well as other information
needed to manage future activities. They can examine the critical path, the revised start and finish dates for the updated activities, and the
difference between the planned and actual finish dates. To calculate the finish date for the entire project, the system analyzes the finish dates
of the updated individual activities and identifies the latest finish date (i.e., the project completion date). The system generates an output of
ahead (green), on time (yellow), or delayed (red) by comparing and contrasting the last finish date in the as-planned schedule with the last
finish date in the as-built schedule. Then, the system numerically calculates the planned versus actual project finish date differential. In
addition, it produces and displays a list of activities that were either completed within the month preceding the date of the current update
(i.e., the date on which the current scan was performed) or scheduled to be conducted within the upcoming month. In cases where both the
free float and total float for an activity are 0, the critical path is displayed as well. Based on the results of the update, the as-planned and
asbuilt schedules are displayed in the form of bar charts.
Case Study
The schedule update provides project managers with critical schedule information. This study was designed to develop a system that includes
a GUI to provide critical schedule information to project managers. To verify the performance of the developed system, a case study was
conducted on an actual construction site where composite steel–concrete structural works were in progress. For the case study, a construction
project located in Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea, was selected. The total land area was approximately 11,531 m2, whereas the total
building area was 6,637 m2. Multiple scans were performed on April 14, 2012. The work in progress on that date consisted of the erection
of steel frames for the fourth through sixth floors and the pouring of concrete for a C-tower on the third floor, an N-tower on the fourth floor,
a C-tower on the seventh floor, and an N-tower on the eighth floor. The construction project was multistory, large-scale, and complex enough
to evaluate the proposed system. To acquire as-built data, a total of 17 scans were conducted at different stories and locations in and around
the building. Scan density was set to acquire the 3D point cloud with a grid of 0.02-m resolution at a distance of 10 m. Fig. 4(a) shows the
as-built data obtained by cropping the target site after registration of the 17 sets of laser-scan data. Autodesk Revit software was used to
construct the BIM. For the schedule information on the project, the detailed schedule created in Microsoft Project was utilized. Synchro
was used to link the BIM to the schedule information. Fig. 4(b) shows the BIM used in this study.
When the users execute the proposed system, a GUI opens with the start page illustrated in Fig. 5. Then, by clicking the create button,
users can set a scan date, choose an image file for the project, and choose the input files (the as-built data in .txt format and 4D BIM model
in .ifc format). After project creation, when users click the analyze button, pop-up windows open for selecting three points from the as-built
data, together with the corresponding three points from the 3D point cloud for the as-planned model. After selecting a total of three pairs of
points, the system asks whether to proceed. If users select to proceed, the proposed system automatically registers as-built point cloud and
as-planned BIM, measures the actual progress on each component, measures actual progress on each activity, updates start and finish dates
for each activity, and provides critical schedule information. After the process is completed, the system writes and saves new files in .mpp
format and .ifc format with the updated schedule. Also, the system displays critical schedule information obtained through the schedule
update on the GUI.
Fig. 6 shows the results of the 3D registration of the as-built data and the as-planned model. In that figure, the as-built point cloud
acquired by a laser scanner is shown in blue, whereas the 3D point cloud generated from the as-planned model is depicted in red. To specify
the data to be used in the 3D registration, users manually select three points in the as-built data and their corresponding three points in the
as-planned data. Once the points are selected, a local region (a sphere with a specific radius) is generated around each of them. Whereas a
larger radius leads to much higher computational costs, to find correspondence between data sets—that is, to find the nearest point from the
other data set—a smaller radius speeds up the correspondence computation but may provide a less accurate estimate of the transformation
matrix because it is difficult to find pairs of points exactly in the same positions as the as-built data and asplanned data. In this study, the
radius of the sphere was specified to be 2,000 mm, which could strike a balance between computational efficiency and accuracy of the 3D
registration. The data points that lie within the local regions of the as-built data and those that lie within the corresponding local regions of
the as-planned model were extracted. In Figs. 6(a and b), the points in the local regions are shown in green. The data extracted for each
local region from the as-built data and the data extracted for the corresponding local region of the as-planned model have a certain 3D region
in common, although the two data sets are not exactly identical. As shown in Figs. 6(c and d), exact registration was achieved by using the
extracted partial data sets and applying the transformation matrix obtained through that process to the entire set of as-built data.
The performance was validated in terms of overall processing time and the accuracy of the proposed system. The overall processing time
was measured as the execution time for the proposed system, from construction progress measurement to schedule update and visualization.
For these experiments, a laptop with a 2.3-GHz processor [Intel (Santa Clara, CA) Core i7-3615QM CPU] and 8 GB of RAM was used. In
the case study, the 4D BIM model was composed of 4,251 building components, and 56 construction activities were related to
thosebuildingcomponents.Thewholeprocess, includingthecomparison of as-built data (11,523,010 points) with the as-planned model,
calculation of actual progress, and schedule update and visualization, was achieved with a time of approximately 9 min and 30 s. Although
the overall processing time depends on the size of the project, this means that manual analysis requiring considerable efforts by project
managers can be reduced in that way and be efficient.
The accuracy of the proposed system was assessed by examining recall and precision rates to evaluate how reliably the system measured
the actual progress on each component. The recall rate is the percentage of structural components actually constructed by the scan date that
are correctly classified as constructed. A lower recall rate indicates that many of the actually constructed components have been falsely
classified. The precision rate is the percentage of components classified as constructed that are actually constructed by the scan date. A
lower precision rate indicates that many of the components not constructed by the scan date have been falsely classified as constructed. The
recall and precision rates were 100 and 100%, respectively. These results, in turn, ensure the reliability of the results of the subsequent
process of measuring the actual progress on each activity, updating the start and finishdates for each activity, and providing critical schedule
information. These results indicate that schedule updating can be performed in objective and reliable manners compared to the subjective
analysis of the project managers.
Table 1 presents the results of construction progress measurement of the six activities that were in progress at the time of the case study.
Each activity’s status and actual progress rate were based on the as-built statuses obtained for the various components by applying the
proposed method, including the two-stage revision process. The progress rates and statuses for the steel frame fourth to sixth
Fig.4. Data for field experiment: (a) 3D point cloud; (b) BIM
Fig.5. Start page of GUI of proposed system

Fig. 6. Comparing as-built data with as-planned model: (a) selected points and local regions from as-built data; (b) selected points and local regions
from as-planned model; (c) initial positions; (d) registration results
Table 1. Results of Construction Progress Measurement (Ongoing

Activities Only)
Actual status of Determined status
activity of activity
Activity name
Steel frame fourth to sixth Started Started
floors (C-tower)
Steel frame fourth to sixth Started Started

floors (N-tower)
Third floor (C-tower) Not yet started Not yet started
Fourth floor (N-tower) Not yet started Not yet started
Seventh floor (C-tower) Started Started
Eighth floor (N-tower) Started Started
Table 2. Results of Calculation of Actual Progress (Ongoing Activities Only)
Activity name Actual progress (%) Planned progress (%)

Steel frame fourth to sixth 17 100
floors (C-Tower)
Steel frame fourth to sixth 20 100
floors (N-Tower)
Third floor (C-Tower) 0 100
Fourth floor (N-Tower) 0 100
Seventh floor (C-Tower) 5 100
Eighth floor (N-Tower) 5 100
Son, H., Kim, C., and Cho, Y. (2017). "Automated Schedule Update using AS-Built Data and 4D Building Information
Model." ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33, Issue 4, July. dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000528
floors (C-tower), steel frame fourth to sixth floors (N-tower), seventh floor (C-tower), and eighth floor (N-tower), were
measured and determined to have started because some of the components in those activities were not yet constructed. The
third floor (C-tower) and fourth floor (N-tower) were classified as not yet started because any components in those activities
were not yet constructed.
Table 2 illustrates the planned and actual progress for those six activities. The system compared the progress of each
activity (the actual construction status) with the planned schedule (as-planned data) to determine whether the work was ahead
of schedule, behind schedule, or right on schedule. According to the original plan, all of those activities were to be completed
by the time of the scan, but they were all behind schedule.
Fig. 7 shows the updated schedule by reflecting the actual progress measured for each activity. The developed system
updates and displays the start and finish dates of each activity, based on its progress. Those dates are entered automatically
into Microsoft Project when the user enters the current scan date. A comparison between the planned schedule in Fig. 7(a)
and the updated schedule in Fig. 7(b) reveals that the finish date of each of the six activities listed in Table 2 was later than
the planned finish date. As a result, the activities that were planned as successors to those delayed activities were also
postponed, according to the given predecessor–successor relationships. The lines with asterisks in Fig. 7(b) represent the
critical path, and thus the updated schedule for the critical path (i.e., updated to reflect the actual progress) can be easily
identified.
Fig. 8 shows a system GUI that provides project managers with the critical schedule information on the project based on
the updated schedule. This GUI displays the critical information on the overall project at the top, and information on the
individual activities at the bottom. In the critical information for the overall project, the status of the project is indicated (as
either ahead, shown in green; on time, shown in yellow; or delayed, shown in red), and the result of predicting the time to
project completion is displayed (as the number of days ahead of schedule, prefaced by a minus sign; or as the projected
number of days of work still needed, prefaced by a plus sign, if progress is behind schedule).
The information on each activity reveals activities to be performed between the current scan date and the date of the next
update, according to the established progress period. Also displayed for each activity are the planned schedule, the actual
schedule, and the critical path. The planned schedule is shown in the form of a gray bar. If the actual schedule is ahead of
the planned schedule, it is displayed in a diagonal pattern; if the actual schedule is the same as the planned schedule, it is
displayed in a horizontal pattern; and if the actual schedule is delayed, it is displayed in dark gray. An exclamation point in
front of the name of an activity indicates that the activity lies on the critical path. The provision of the schedule information
allows users to easily identify the progress on the project and the activities to be performed by the date of the next schedule
update.
5479.0000528
5479.0000528
Fig. 7. Schedule update results: (a) as-planned schedule; (b) updated schedule
Conclusion
This study proposed and developed a system that automates schedule updating for all aspects of a project: comparing the planned progress
against the actual progress on each component, measuring the actual progress on each activity, updating the start and finish dates for each
activity, and providing critical schedule information. By comparing the as-built data acquired by the laser scanner with the BIM, the actual
progress on specific activities is measured automatically. Then, based on these measured results, the developed system updates the schedules
previously set up in Microsoft Project. In addition, the critical scheduling information for the project manager is provided in a GUI. To
verify the performance of the system developed in this study, a case study was conducted on an actual construction site.
This study is informative in that it contributes to the automation of all the steps involved in schedule updating. The updated schedule is
automatically documented and saved to be compatible with commercially available scheduling software tools. Hence, project managers can
utilize these data easily and efficiently within scheduling software they use. In addition, the proposed system provides critical schedule
information to the project manager. By updating the project schedule via the proposed system, prompt assessment of project status and
reliable scheduling of upcoming activities are enabled. With automatic schedule updates, the practice can be made more efficient, and human
errors that might occur during the process of schedule updating can be prevented. In particular, by providing the current state of the project,
the expected completion date for the entire project, the critical path, and the difference(s) from the asplanned schedule, the proposed system
clearly presents the current state of the project to the project manager and helps the project manager to establish future scheduling.
In the current study, the evaluation was conducted on a single but representative case of a real-world construction project in which
structural works were performed. Future research will include testing the proposed system on various construction projects in terms of
practical applicability and efficiency in updating schedules. In addition, in the proposed system, 3D registration of the as-built data and the
as-planned model remained a manual process. Future research will focus on introducing mobile laser scanners to the asbuilt data collection
to be more efficient, as well as measuring the locations of the laser scanners and location and orientation information in the 4D model to the
Fig.8. GUI of proposed system for automated schedule updates
3D registration of the as-built data and the as-planned model. Also, to expand the applicability of the proposed system for various
activities—not only structural works but also mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP); architectural; and finishing works—future
research will include developing a method for automated recognition of objects associated with such activities. Moreover, the current study
assumed that the structural components are constructed at the positions indicated in the construction drawings. However, changes to
construction plans and construction errors might occur, and in these cases, the actual progress and the progress measured by the system may
differ. Therefore, follow-up research is planned to refine the current system so that it is capable of reflecting such changes in the locations
where structural components are planned.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the
Ministry of Education (NRF-2013R1A1A2A10058175).
References
Bell, L. C., and McCulloch, B. G. (1988). “Bar code applications in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364 (1988)114:2(263),
263–78.
Benjemaa, R., and Schmitt, F. (1999). “Fast global registration of 3D sampled surfaces using a multi-z-buffer technique.” Image Vision Comput., 17(2),
113–23.
Bettemir, Ö . H., and Sonmez, R. (2015). “Hybrid genetic algorithm with simulated annealing for resource-constrained project scheduling.” J. Manage. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000323, 04014082.
Bosche, F. (2010). “Automated recognition of 3D CAD model objects in laser scans and calculation of as-built dimensions for dimensional compliance
control in construction.” Adv. Eng. Inf., 24(1), 107–18.
Bosche, F., Haas, C. T., and Akinci, B. (2009). “Automated recognition of 3D CAD objects in site laser scans for project 3D status visualization and
performance control.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887 -3801(2009)23:6(311), 311–318.
Bubshait, A. A., and Cunningham,M. J. (1998). “Comparison of delay analysis methodologies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733 -
9364(1998)124:4(315), 315–322.
Chen, X. X., Liu, L., and Li, Y. (2010). “An improved method for project duration forecasting.” Proc., 2010 Int. Conf. on 3-Business and E-Government,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Guangzhou, China, 2644–2647.
Chin, S., Yoon, S., Choi, C., and Cho, C. (2008). “RFIDþ 4D CAD for progress management of structural steel works in high-rise buildings.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2008)22:
2(74), 74–89.
Cyclone [Computer software]. Leica Geosystems, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Dang, T., and Bargstädt, H.-J. (2016). “4D relationships: The missing link in 4D scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943 -
7862.0001007, 04015072.
Elazouni, A., and Salem, O. A. (2011). “Progress monitoring of construction projects using pattern recognition techniques.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 29(4),
355–370.
Fan, S.-L., Tserng, H. P., and Wang, M.-T. (2003). “Development of an object-oriented scheduling model for construction projects.” Autom. Constr.,
12(3), 283–302.
Fitzgibbon, A. W. (2003). “Robust registration of 2D and 3D point sets.” Image Vision Comput., 21(13–14), 1145–1153.
Golparvar-Fard, M., Peña-Mora, F., and Savarese, S. (2009). “D4AR—A 4-dimensional augmented reality model for automating construction progress
monitoring data collection, processing and communication.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000205, 129–153.
Golparvar-Fard, M., Peña-Mora, F., and Savarese, S. (2015). “Automated progress monitoring using unordered daily construction photographs and IFC-
based building information models.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10 .1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000205, 04014025.
Hwang, B.-G., and Leong, L. P. (2013). “Comparison of schedule delay and causal factors between traditional and green construction projects.” Technol.
Econ. Dev. Economy, 19(2), 310–330.
Hwang, B.-G., Zhao, X., and Ng, S. Y. (2013). “Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule performance of public housing projects.” Habitat Int., 38,
214–221.
Ibrahim, Y. M., Lukins, T. C., Zhang, X., Trucco, E., and Kaka, A. P. (2009). “Towards automated progress assessment of workpackage components in
construction projects using computer vision.” Adv. Eng. Inf., 23(1), 93–103.
Jan, S.-H., Tserng, H.-P., and Ho, S.-P. (2013). “Enhance construction visual as-built schedule management using BIM technology.” Int. J. Civ. Environ.
Struct. Constr. Arch. Eng., 7, 476–481.
Jung, Y., and Kang, S. (2007). “Knowledge-based standard progress measurement for integrated cost and schedule performance control.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:1(10), 10–21.
Kim, C., Son, H., and Kim, C. (2013a). “Automated construction progress measurement using a 4D building information model and 3D data.” Autom.
Constr., 31, 75–82.
Kim, C., Son, H., and Kim, C. (2013b). “Fully automated registration of 3D data to a 3D CAD model for project progress.” Autom. Constr., 35, 587–594.
Kim, Y., Kim, K., and Shin, D. (2005). “Delay analysis method using delay section.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)
131:11(1155), 1155–1164.
Kiziltas, S., and Akinci, B. (2005). “The need for prompt schedule update by utilizing reality capture the technologies: A case study.” Construction Research
Congress 2005, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–10.
Kohoutek, T. K., Mautz, R., and Wegner, J. D. (2013). “Fusion of building information and range imaging for autonomous location estimation in indoor
environment.” Sensors, 13(2), 2430–2446.
Liberatore, M. J., Pollack-Johnson, B., and Smith, C. A. (2001). “Project management in construction: Software use and research direction.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:2(101), 101–107.
Liu, L. Y., Stumpf, A. L., Chin, S. Y., Ganeshan, R., and Hicks, D. (1995). “Construction daily log management system using multimedia technology.”
Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1084–1089.
Liu, S., and Shih, K. (2009). “Construction rescheduling based on a manufacturing rescheduling framework.” Autom. Constr., 18(6), 715–723.
Lu, Y., Li, Y., Skibniewski, M., Wu, Z., Wang, R., and Le, Y. (2015). “Information and communication technology applications in architecture, engineering,
and construction organizations: A 15-year review.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000319, A4014010.
McCulloch, B. (1997). Automating field data collection in construction organizations, construction congress V: Managing engineered construction in
expanding global markets, ASCE, Reston, VA, 957–963.
Menesi, W., and Hegazy, T. (2015). “Multimode resource-constrained scheduling and leveling for practical-size project.” J. Manage. Eng.,
10 .1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000338, 04014092.
Olawale, Y., and Sun, M. (2013). “PCIM: Project control and inhibitingfactors management model.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME .1943-
5479.0000125, 60–70.
Ozcan-Deniz, G., Zhu, Y., and Ceron, V. (2012). “Time, cost, and environmental impact analysis and construction operation optimization using genetic
algorithms.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479 .0000098, 265–272.
PMI (ProjectManagement Institute). (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 4th Ed., Newtown Square, PA.
Primavera [Computer software]. Oracle, Inc., Redwood Shores, CA.
Project [Computer software]. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.
Rebolj, D., Babic, N. C., Magdi c, A., Podbreznik, P., and Pšunder, M. (2008). “Automated construction activity monitoring system.” Adv. Eng.
Inf., 22(4), 493–503.
Revit [Computer software]. Autodesk, Inc., San Rafael, CA.
Sehgal, A., Cernea, D., and Makaveeva, M. (2010). “Real-time scale invariant 3D range point cloud registration.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Image Analysis
and Recognition, Springer, Berlin, 220–229.
Shih, N.-J., and Wang, P.-H. (2004). “Point-cloud-based comparison between construction schedule and as-built progress: Long-range threedimensional
laser scanner’s approach.” J. Archit. Eng., 10.1061 /(ASCE)1076-0431(2004)10:3(98), 98–102.
Synchro [Computer software]. Synchro Ltd., Coventry, U.K.
Thomas, H. R., and Mathews, C. T. (1986). An analysis of the methods for measuring construction productivity, source document 13, Construction Industry
Institute, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX.
Turkan, Y., Bosche, F., Haas, C. T., and Haas, R. (2012). “Automated progress tracking using 4D schedule and 3D sensing technologies.” Autom. Constr.,
22, 414–421.
Unnikrishnan, R., and Hebert, M. (2008). “Multi-scale interest regions from unorganized point clouds.” Proc., 2008 IEEE Computer Society Conf. on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1–8.
Weinmann, M., and Jutzi, B. (2011). “Fully automatic image-based registration of unorganized TLS data.” Int. Arch. Photogramm., Remote Sens. Spatial
Inf. Sci., XXXVIII-5/W12, 29–31.
Winter, R., and Everenosoglu, F. B. (2011). “MS Project for construction schedulers.” Proc., AACE Int. 55th Annual Meeting, AACE International,
Morgantown,WV,19–22.
Zhang, X., et al. (2009). “Automating progress measurement of construction projects.” Autom. Constr., 18(3), 294–301.

Automated Schedule Updates Using As-Built Data and A 4D Building Information Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Automated Schedule Updates Using As-Built Data and A 4D Building Information Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Son, H., Kim, C., and Cho, Y. (2017).

Automated Schedule Updates Using As-Built Data and a 4D

Proposed Schedule-Update System

As-Built Data Collection

Construction Progress Measurement

Retrieving As-Planned Model on As-Built Data on

As-built data collection

Local Region-based Registration

Comparison of as-built data with the as-planned model

Calculation of Actual Progress on

Calculation of actual progress

Update Actual Progress to Updated

Generate Critical Schedule Critical Schedule

Schedule update and visualization

Fig.2. Proposed process for automated schedule updates

Calculation of Actual Progress

2. For related component Ckm, m ¼ 1;2;3;:::;nk

3. Status of deviation on component Ckm is

5. Status of deviation on activity Ak is Dk ¼ ðPnmk1 SkmÞ=nk 100

Schedule Update and Visualization

Fig.5. Start page of GUI of proposed system

Table 1. Results of Construction Progress Measurement (Ongoing

Steel frame fourth to sixth Started Started

Activity name Actual progress (%) Planned progress (%)

Fig.8. GUI of proposed system for automated schedule updates

You might also like