Information integration and management through the design and construction phases of a project life cycle

Information management is a key aspect of successful construction projects. Having inaccurate measurements and conflicting data can lead to costly mistakes, and vague quantities can ruin estimates and schedules. Building information modeling (BIM) augments a 3D model with a wide variety of information, which reduces many sources of error and can detect conflicts before they occur. Because new technology is often more complex, it can be difficult to effectively integrate it with existing business practices. In this paper, we will answer two questions: How can BIM add value to construction projects? and What lessons can be learned from other companies that use BIM or other similar technology? Previous research focused on the technology as if it were simply a tool, observing problems that occurred while integrating new technology into existing practices. Our research instead looks at the flow of information through a company and its network, seeing all the actors as part of an ecosystem. Building upon this idea, we proposed the metaphor of an information supply chain to illustrate how BIM can add value to a construction project. This paper then concludes with two case studies. The first case study illustrates a failure in the flow of information that could have prevented by using BIM. The second case study profiles a leading design firm that has used BIM products for many years and shows the real benefits of using this program.

Review of assessment, design, and mitigation of multiple hazards

Large parts of the world are subjected to one or more natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons), costal inundation and flooding. Virtually the entire world is at risk of man-made hazards. In recent decades, rapid population growth and economic development in hazard-prone areas have greatly increased the potential of multiple hazards to cause damage and destruction of buildings, bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure; thus posing a grave danger to the community and disruption of economic and societal activities. Although an individual hazard is significant in many parts of the United States (U.S.), in certain areas more than one hazard may pose a threat to the constructed environment. In such areas, structural design and construction practices should address multiple hazards in an integrated manner to achieve structural performance that is consistent with owner expectations and general societal objectives. The growing interest and importance of multiple-hazard engineering has been recognized recently. This has spurred the evolution of multiple-hazard risk-assessment frameworks and development of design approaches which have paved way for future research towards sustainable construction of new and improved structures and retrofitting of the existing structures. This report provides a review of literature and the current state of practice for assessment, design and mitigation of the impact of multiple hazards on structural infrastructure. It also presents an overview of future research needs related to multiple-hazard performance of constructed facilities.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LLDPE/CaCO3 MODIFIERS WITH AND WITHOUT TITANATE COUPLING AGENT ON ASPHALT BINDER AND MIXTURE

The complexity and challenge created by asphalt material motivates researchers and engineers to investigate the behavior of this material to develop a better understanding, and improve the performance of asphalt pavement. Over decades, a wide range of modification at macro, meso, micro and nano scales have been conducted to improve the performance of asphalt pavement. This study was initiated to utilize the newly developed asphalt modifier pellets. These pellets consisted of different combinations of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) and titanate coupling agent (CA) to improve the asphalt binder as well as pavement performance across a wide range of temperature and loading pace. These materials were used due to their unique characteristics and promising findings from various industries, especially as modifiers in pavement material. The challenge is to make sure the CaCO3 disperses very well in the mixture. The rheological properties of neat asphalt binder PG58-28 and modified asphalt binder (PG58-28/LLDPE, PG58-28/CaCO3, PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE, and PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE/CA), were determined using rotational viscometer (RV) test, dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) test and bending beam rheometer test. In the DSR test, the specimens were evaluated using frequency sweep and multiple shear creep recovery (MSCR). The asphalt mixtures (aggregate/PG58-28, aggregate/ PG58-28/LLDPE, aggregate/PG58-28/CaCO3, aggregate/PG58-28/LLDPE/CaCO3 and aggregate/PG58-28/LLDPE/CaCO3/CA) were evaluated using the four point beam fatigue test, the dynamic modulus (E*) test, and tensile strength test (to determines tensile strength ratio, TSR). The RV test results show that all modified asphalt binders have a higher viscosity compared to the neat asphalt binder (PG58-28). Based on the Jnr results (using MSCR test), all the modified asphalt binders have a better resistance to rutting compared to the neat asphalt binder. A higher modifier contents have resulted in a better recovery percentage of asphalt binder (higher resistance to rutting), except the specimens prepared using PECC’s modified asphalt binder (PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE). The BBR test results show that all the modified asphalt binders have shown comparable performance in term of resistance to low temperature cracking, except the specimen prepared using the LLDPE modifier. Overall, 5 wt% LLDPE modified asphalt binder was found to be the best asphalt binder in terms of resistance to rutting. Meanwhile, 3 wt% PECC-1CA’s modified asphalt binder can be considered as the best (in terms of resistance to thermal cracking) with the lowest mean critical cracking temperature. The appearance of CaCO3 was found useful merely in improving the resistance to fatigue cracking of asphalt mixture. However, application of LLDPE has undermined the fatigue life of asphalt mixtures. Adding LLDPE and coupling agent throughout this study does not sufficiently help in terms of elastic behavior which essential to enhance the resistance to fatigue cracking. In contrast, application of LLDPE has increased the indirect tensile strength values and TSR of asphalt mixtures, indicates a better resistance to moisture damage. The usage of the coupling agent does not change the behavior of the asphalt mixture, which could be due to imbalance effects resulted by combination of LLDPE and CaCO3 in asphalt binder. Further investigations without incorporating CaCO3 should be conducted further. To investigate the feasibility of using LLDPE and coupling agent as modifiers in asphalt pavements, more research should be conducted on different percentages of LLDPE (less than 3 wt%), and at the higher and w wider range of coupling agent content, from 3 wt% to 7 wt% based on the polymer mass.