Productivity Analysis Comparison of Different Types of Earthmoving Operations by Means of Various Productivity Measurements

Abstract Researchers and site engineers in construction have tried to develop appropriate methods of productivity measurements. Even though many methods have been released in academia and industry, they seldom are able to select the optimized method while considering various site conditions. This study was developed from a previous study which presented the quantified productivity differences on one specific operation, that of the conventional earthmoving operation. This study suggested more consistent results for productivity differences by various methods while focusing on two different operations; the conventional and the GPS-based system. This study verified the findings from a previous study whereby results from a deterministic method and an actual measurement yield the highest values and the lowest values, respectively. It was also found that the quantified differences were mostly within 10% of the range of productivity loss in the deterministic measurement, which was illustrated in the literature. Additional statistical verification showed that the differences were mostly within 95% of the confidence intervals. It is expected that this study will provide researchers in academia with basic guidelines for developing appropriate methods for performance measurements. This study also assists site engineers in the construction industry to predict productivity and to convert results to more realistic values by using methods other than actual measurements.

[1]  S. Abourizk,et al.  STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF CONSTRUCTION DURATION DATA , 1992 .

[2]  Simaan M. AbouRizk,et al.  AP2-Earth: a simulation based system for the estimating and planning of earth moving operations , 1997, WSC '97.

[3]  Govindan Kannan.  A Methodology for the Development of a Production Experience Database for Earthmoving Operations Using Automated Data Collection , 1999 .

[4]  Robert Tremblay,et al.  Making use of brace overstrength to improve the seismic response of multistorey split-X concentrically braced steel frames , 2006 .

[5]  Daniel W. Halpin,et al.  Simulation experiment for improving construction processes , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 2004..

[6]  Herbert L. Nichols.  Moving the Earth: The Workbook of Excavation , 1976 .

[7]  Daniel W. Halpin,et al.  Planning and analysis of construction operations , 1992 .

[8]  Seung-Woo Han,et al.  Simulation analysis of productivity variation by global positioning system (GPS) implementation in earthmoving operations , 2006 .

[9]  Seungwoo Han.  Application modeling of the conventional and the GPS-based earthmoving systems , 2005 .

[10]  Daniel W. Halpin,et al.  The use of simulation for productivity estimation based on multiple regression analysis , 2005, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[11]  Xianping Guo,et al.  Continuous-Time Markov Decision Processes with Discounted Rewards: The Case of Polish Spaces , 2007, Math. Oper. Res..

[12]  N D Lea.  Construction management. , 1968, Canadian hospital.

[13]  Giovanni C. Migliaccio,et al.  Construction Equipment Management , 2019 .

[14]  Craig L. Koehrsen,et al.  GPS-Based Earthmoving for Construction , 2001, Digital Earth Moving.

[15]  Sangyoub Lee,et al.  Production prediction of conventional and global positioning system–based earthmoving systems using simulation and multiple regression analysis , 2008 .

[16]  Seung-Woo Han,et al.  Quantified Comparison and Analysis of Different Productivity Measurements , 2008 .