Advertisement

Data Analysis and Design of Construction Productivity Efficiency Multipliers

  • John-Paris Pantouvakis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

The prediction of construction productivity is an integral part of the planning and cost estimating process. Although different methods are available and some comparisons between different methods can be found in the literature, an analysis of the data required for productivity estimation with the purpose of developing a unified database of productivity efficiency multipliers is rarely addressed. This paper examines the data required for productivity estimation according to Komatsu and Caterpillar performance manuals with the purpose to analyze dependencies between the data, formulate functional dependencies and investigate the hypothesis that a unified database for the two methods can be designed. For the purposes of this paper only excavation has been analyzed but it is argued that the same methodology can be extended to other construction activities also. The process revealed “dark” areas (i.e. not existing data) in the published data (e.g. for swing angles of less than 45° in the prediction of excavation productivity for Komatsu), different values for the same factor (e.g. different fill factors for the same soil) and, even different reliance between factors (e.g. cycle time for excavation).

Keywords

Construction productivity Caterpillar Komatsu Database Productivity coefficients 

References

  1. 1.
    Park H (2006) Conceptual framework of construction productivity estimation. KSCE J Civil Eng 10(5):311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kotte G (1997) Ermittlung der Nutzförderleistung von Hydraulikbaggern. Tiefbau Ingenieurbau Strassenbau 9:18–28Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BML (1983) Handbuch BML: Daten für die Berechnung von Baumaschinen-Leistungen. Zeittechnik Verlag, Neu-IsenburgGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Komatsu (2013) Specifications and application handbook, 31st edn. Komatsu, JapanGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caterpillar (2016) Caterpillar performance handbook, 46th edn. Caterpillar Inc, Illinois USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peurifoy RL, Schexnayder CJ, Shapira A (2006) Construction planning, equipment, and methods, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nunally SW (2007) Construction methods and management. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Voutzi M (2017) Comparative study of construction equipment productivity. M.Sc. Dissertation, Hellenic Open UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    RSMeans (2017) Building construction cost data: 75th annual edition. R. S. Means Company Inc, KingstonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Panas A, Pantouvakis JP (2010) Evaluating research methodology in construction productivity studies. Built Hum Environ Rev 3(1):63–85Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panas Α, Pantouvakis JP (2010) Comparative analysis of operational coefficients’ impact on earthmoving operations. Eng Constr Architect Manage 17(5):461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schexnayder CJ (1997) Analysis of earth-moving systems using discrete-event simulation: discussion. J Constr Eng Manag 123(2):199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Date CJ (2012) Database design and relational theory. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations