While this overcomes the drafting problem it may not be acceptable from a cost control point of view, especially if the network is geared to an EVA system (see Chapter 32). If, for example, two adjoining activities were 'Cast Column, 4 days' and 'Cast Beam, 2 days' and it were necessary to insert 'Strike Formwork, 2 days' between the two activities, the planner would simply restate the first activity as 'Cast Column and Strike Formwork, 6 days' (Figure 23.2). In practice, resourceful planners can overcome the problem by combining the new activity with one of the existing activities. ViV 101 (1:0) 102(3:0) 103(2:0) Vi/jo'H«¡T^U/ 105 (1 :0)"~ Vjg/,106 (2:0)"Ĭompleted or partially completed o-o o-o 0*0įigure 23.1 AoA network drawn on grid Critical pathĪ grid system can, however, pose a problem when it becomes necessary to insert an activity between two existing ones. It will be noticed that the link lines never cross a node! An example of such a computerized arrow diagram, which has been developed by Claremont Controls as part of their latest Hornet Windmill program, is given in Figure 23.1. The grid system also makes it possible to produce acceptable arrow diagrams on a computer which can be used 'in the field' without converting them into the conventional bar chart. Instead the grid reference numbers (or letters) can be fed into the computer. With the development of the network grid, the drafting of an arrow diagram enables the activities to be easily organized into disciplines or work areas and eliminates the need to enter reference numbers into the nodes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |