Minimizing Emissions and Cost Through Reducing Equipment Idle Time in Concreting Operations

  • Nur Kamaliah MustaffaEmail author
  • Mohd Feisal Hafiz Abdul Aziz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Concreting operations commonly utilize a large range of equipment that generates a considerable amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Equipment idle time is considered as a non-productive time that it increases the fuel use and emissions without any production. Reducing idle time in operation implies the opportunity to improve productivity, cost efficiency, and emissions reduction. Continuous efforts have been made to determine the efficient solutions in reducing emissions of construction operations. Existing publications on concreting operations have focused on cost and production, with little attention being given to emissions. In response to this need, this paper aims to examine the influence of equipment idle times towards emissions, costs and production performance. This paper investigates the link between idle time, equipment utilization, production, emissions, costs, and optimum equipment configurations. Case study data along with Monte Carlo simulation are used to develop a model for cyclical concreting operations. The results highlight that eliminating most of the truck waiting time translates to higher utilization of both trucks and loader, thus increasing the non-idle fuel use and consequently increases emissions.


Concreting operations Cost per production Emissions per production Idling time Non-idling time 


  1. Ahn CR, Lee S (2013) Importance of operational efficiency to achieve energy efficiency and exhaust emission reduction of construction operations. J Constr Eng Manag 139(4):404–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn C, Rekapalli PV, Martinez JC, Pena-Mora FA (2009) Sustainability analysis of earthmoving operations. Proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference, 13–16 December, Austin, TX, pp 2605–2611Google Scholar
  3. Ahn C, Lee S, Peña-Mora F, Abourizk S (2010) Toward environmentally sustainable construction processes. The US and Canada’s perspective on energy consumption and GHG/CAP emissions. Sustainability 2(1):354–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahn CR, Lee S-H, Peña-Mora F (2013) Application of low-cost accelerometers for measuring the operational efficiency of a construction equipment fleet. J Comput Civil Eng 29(2):1–11Google Scholar
  5. Akhavian R, Behzadan AH (2013) An integrated data collection and analysis framework for remote monitoring and planning of construction operations. Adv Eng Inform 26(4):749–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avetisyan HG, Miller-Hooks E, Melanta S (2012) Decision models to support greenhouse gas emissions reduction from transportation construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 138(5):631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmichael DG (1987) Engineering queues in construction and mining. Ellis Horwood Ltd (John Wiley and Sons), ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmichael DG, Mustaffa NK (2018) Emissions and production penalties/bonuses associated with non-standard earthmoving loading policies. Constr Innov 18(2)Google Scholar
  9. Carmichael DG, Williams EH, Kaboli AS (2012) Minimum operational emissions in earthmoving, ASCE construction research congress 2012, 21–23 May, Purdue University, Indiana, pp 1869–1878, ISBN 9780784412329Google Scholar
  10. Carmichael DG, Bartlett BJ, Kaboli AS (2014) Surface mining operations: coincident unit cost and emissions. Int J Min Reclam Environ 28(1):47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DCCEE (2017) National greenhouse account factors, Australian national greenhouse accounts. Department of the Environment and Energy, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  12. EPA (2009) Potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the construction sector. EPA Sector Strategies Program, US Environmental Protection Agency, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Ercelebi SG, Bascetin A (2009) Optimization of shovel-truck system for surface mining. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 109(7):433–439Google Scholar
  14. Frey HC, Kim K (2009) In-use measurement of the activity, fuel use, and emissions of eight cement mixer trucks operated on each of petroleum diesel and soy-based B20 biodiesel. Transp Res Part D 14:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey H, Kuo PY, Villa C (2008) Methodology for characterization of long-haul truck idling activity under real-world conditions. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 13(8):516–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasan MS (2013) Decision support system for crane selection and location optimization on construction sites. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  17. Hillier FS, Lieberman GJ (1990) Introduction to stochastic models in operations research. McGraw-Hill CompaniesGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarkas AM, Bitar CG (2011) Factors affecting construction labor productivity in Kuwait. J Constr Eng Manag 138(7):811–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis P (2009) Estimating fuel use and emission rates of nonroad diesel construction equipment performing representative duty cycles. Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, North Carolina.
  20. Lewis P, Leming M, Rasdorf W (2012) Impact of engine idling on fuel use and CO2 emissions of nonroad diesel construction equipment. J Manag Eng 28(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nasirzadeh F, Nojedehi P (2013) Dynamic modeling of labor productivity in construction projects. Int J Project Manag 31(6):903–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peña-Mora F, Ahn C, Golparvar-Fard M, Hajibabai L, Shiftehfar S, An S, Aziz Z, Song S (2009) A framework for managing emissions during construction. In: Proceedings of the NSF international workshop on green buildings and sustainable construction. National Science Foundation (NSF), Cairo, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  23. Yi W, Chan AP (2013) Critical review of labor productivity research in construction journals. J Manag Eng 30(2):214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nur Kamaliah Mustaffa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohd Feisal Hafiz Abdul Aziz
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MARAShah AlamMalaysia
  2. 2.Human Capital Division, Public Service DepartmentFederal Government Administrative CentrePutrajayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations