The Use of Disruptive Technologies in the Construction Industry: A Case Study to Compare 2D and VR Methods of Concrete Design Interpretation †
Abstract
:1. Objectives
2. Methodology
3. Results
4. Implications
5. Originality Value
6. Contribution
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hamid, A.A.; Botiti, D.C.; Mohandes, S. Managing the Delayed Completion on Construction Project. J. Adv. Res. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2015, 1, 14–24. [Google Scholar]
- Lindhard, S.; Wandahl, S. Exploration of the reasons for delays in construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2014, 14, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dayarathna, V.L.; Karam, S.; Jaradat, R.; Hamilton, M.A.; Nagahi, M.; Joshi, S.; Driouche, B. Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of virtual reality teaching module: A gender-based comparison. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2020, 36, 1938–1955. [Google Scholar]
- Dinis, F.M.; Guimaraes, A.S.; Carvalho, B.R.; Martins, J.P. Virtual and augmented reality game-based applications to civil engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece, 25–28 April 2017; pp. 1683–1688. [Google Scholar]
- Try, S.; Panuwatwanich, K.; Tanapornraweekit, G.; Kaewmoracharoen, M. Virtual reality application to aid civil engineering laboratory course: A multicriteria comparative study. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 29, 1771–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Average Identified Mistakes | Average Unidentified Mistakes (Out of 12) | Average Wrongly Identified Mistake Category * | Average Time | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2D N = 11 | Average | 2.45 | 9.55 | 2.91 | 15:00 |
% | 20.45 | 79.55 | - | ||
SD | 1.67 | 1.67 | 1.24 | ||
VR N = 10 | Average | 7.50 | 4.50 | 2.50 | 9:20 |
% | 62.50 | 37.50 | - | ||
SD | 2.54 | 2.54 | 0.81 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Al-Khiami, M.I.; Jaeger, M.; Soleimani, S.M. The Use of Disruptive Technologies in the Construction Industry: A Case Study to Compare 2D and VR Methods of Concrete Design Interpretation. Proceedings 2023, 85, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2023085001
Al-Khiami MI, Jaeger M, Soleimani SM. The Use of Disruptive Technologies in the Construction Industry: A Case Study to Compare 2D and VR Methods of Concrete Design Interpretation. Proceedings. 2023; 85(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2023085001
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl-Khiami, Mohamad Iyad, Martin Jaeger, and Sayed Mohamad Soleimani. 2023. "The Use of Disruptive Technologies in the Construction Industry: A Case Study to Compare 2D and VR Methods of Concrete Design Interpretation" Proceedings 85, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2023085001