A Statistical-based Approach to Evaluate the Production of Crawler-type Dozer in Construction Projects

Hamed Nabizadeh Rafsanjani^1, , Yaghob Gholipour² and Xiaoxiang Xue³

¹Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA; formerly, School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran 14155, Iran

²School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran 14155, Iran

³Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Omaha, NE 68182, USA; Project Engineer, Jacobs Engineering Group, Omaha, NE 68134, USA

Cite this paper:
Hamed Nabizadeh Rafsanjani, Yaghob Gholipour and Xiaoxiang Xue. A Statistical-based Approach to Evaluate the Production of Crawler-type Dozer in Construction Projects. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture. 2018; 6(2):80-92. doi: 10.12691/ajcea-6-2-5

Abstract

Estimating the actual production rate of construction machinery which clearly differs from nominal production provided by machinery manufacturers always is a critical challenge in construction projects execution. Studies indicate that true estimation of actual production is a key element in estimating the time and cost required to terminate construction operations. However, current literature shows that it is still a quite challenging to estimate actual production. In particular, there are various independent parameters that affect the actual production rate. Understanding the role and importance of each parameter could lead to an accurate estimation for production rates. To this end, this paper presents a statistical-based approach to find the discrepancies between the nominal and actual production rates of crawler-type dozers and to understand how various parameters could affects the actual production rates. The data for the actual production of machine were records from productivity measurement of 39 dozers. Working condition, type of materials, and ground slope are three main independent parameters considered and evaluated for each machine. The results obtained from statistical analyses on the data and a comparison between these results with the data provided by Caterpillar and Komatsu manufacturers show a) the discrepancies between the actual and nominal hourly production, b) the effect of individual parameters on actual production, and c) the relationship between machinery working age and discrepancies. The findings of this study could be a unique help for project managers in planning of machinery and equipment in a project site.

Keywords:
heavy construction machinery crawler-type dozer actual hourly production estimation production parameters statistical analysis case study

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	D. Gransberg, C. Popescu, R. Ryan, Construction Equipment Management for Engineers, Estimators, and Owners, Taylor & Francis, 2006.
[2]	K. Samee, J. Pongpeng, Structural equation model for construction equipment management affecting project and corporate performance, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. (2015) 1-15.
[3]	R. Peurifoy, C. Schexnayder, A. Shapira, R. Schmitt, Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2010.
[4]	Building Intelligent Applications for Construction Equipment Management, in: Comput. Civ. Eng. 2007, American Society of Civil Engineers, n.d.: pp. 192-199.
[5]	O. Tatari, M. Skibniewski, Integrated agent‐based construction equipment management: Conceptual design, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 12 (2006) 231-236.
[6]	G. Heravi, H.N. Rafsanjani, Critical Safety Factors in Construction Projects, Adv. Mater. Res. 255-260 (2011) 3921-3927.
[7]	H.N. Rafsanjani, A Computer Model for Selecting Equipment in Earth-Fill Dam Projects, J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 5 (2011) 465-470.
[8]	H.N. Rafsanjani, An assessment of nominal and actual hourly production of crawler-type front shovel in construction project, JCE-IEB. 40 (2012) 115-124.
[9]	H.N. Rafsanjani, Comparison between Nominal and Actual Hourly Production of Crawler-Type Dozer: A Case Study, in: Comput. Civ. Eng. 2015, American Society of Civil Engineers, n.d.: pp. 17-24.
[10]	H.N. Rafsanjani, Y. Gholipour, H.H. Ranjbar, An Assessment of Nominal and Actual Hourly Production of the Construction Equipment Based on Several Earth-Fill Dam Projects in Iran, Open Civ. Eng. J. 3 (2009) 74-82.
[11]	H.N. Rafsanjani, S. Shahrokhabadi, A. Hadjahmadi, The Use of Linear Regression to Estimate the Actual Hourly Production of a Wheel-Type Loader in Construction Projects, in: ICSDEC 2012, American Society of Civil Engineers, n.d.: pp. 727-731.
[12]	S.W. Nunnally, Managing construction equipment, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hal, 2000.
[13]	Modeling the Dynamics of Heavy Equipment Management Practices and Downtime in Large Highway Contractors, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135 (2009) 939-947.
[14]	G. Lucko, A Statistical Analysis and Model of the Residual Value of Different Types of Heavy Construction Equipment, 2003.
[15]	A. Tsimberdonis, E. Murphree, Equipment Management through Operational Failure Costs, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 120 (1994) 522-535.
[16]	C. Schexnayder, HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ECONOMICS, 1980. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI8102704/.
[17]	A. Tavakoli, J. Masehi, C. Collyard, FLEET: Equipment Management System, J. Manag. Eng. 6 (1990) 211-220.
[18]	H. Tajeen, Z. Zhu, Image dataset development for measuring construction equipment recognition performance, Autom. Constr. 48 (2014) 1-10.
[19]	N. Pradhananga, J. Teizer, Automatic spatio-temporal analysis of construction site equipment operations using GPS data, Autom. Constr. 29 (2013) 107-122.
[20]	H. Yip, H. Fan, Y. Chiang, Predicting the maintenance cost of construction equipment: Comparison between general regression neural network and Box-Jenkins time series models, Autom. Constr. 38 (2014) 30-38.
[21]	A. Hajji, The use of construction equipment productivity rate model for estimating fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissionsCase study: bulldozer, excavator and dump truck, Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8 (2015) 111-121.
[22]	Comparison of Two Models for Estimating Equipment Productivity for a Sustainability Quantification Tool, in: ICSDEC 2012, American Society of Civil Engineers, n.d.: pp. 626-633.
[23]	A. Rashidi, H.R. Nejad, M. Maghiar, Productivity estimation of bulldozers using generalized linear mixed models, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 18 (2014) 1580-1589.
[24]	S. Han, T. Hong, S. Lee, Production prediction of conventional and global positioning system-based earthmoving systems using simulation and multiple regression analysis, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 35 (2008) 574-587.
[25]	K. Schabowicz, B. Hola, Mathematical-neural model for assessing productivity of earthmoving machiner, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (n.d.) 47-54.
[26]	S.C. Ok, S.K. Sinha, Construction equipment productivity estimation using artificial neural network model, Constr. Manag. Econ. 24 (2006) 1029-1044.
[27]	C.D. Edmonds, B. Tsay, W. Lin, Analyzing machine efficiency, Natl. Public Account. 39 (1994) 28-44.
[28]	J. Zou, HSV Color-space Digital Image Processing for the Analysis of Construction Equipment Utilization and for the Maintenance of Digital Cities Image Inventory, University of Alberta (Canada), 2006.
[29]	G.P. Hammer, J.-B. du Prel, M. Blettner, Avoiding Bias in Observational Studies, Dtsch. Ärztebl. Int. 106 (2009) 664-668.
[30]	C.J. Pannucci, E.G. Wilkins, Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research, Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 126 (2010) 619-625.
[31]	Innovation in Construction Equipment and Its Flow into the Construction Industry: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management: (ASCE), (n.d.).
[32]	Caterpillar Inc., Caterpillar performance handbook, 42nd edition, (2012).
[33]	Komatsu Inc., Komatsu Specifications & Application Handbook, 30th edition, (2009).
[34]	P. Lewis, A. Hajji, Evaluation of Construction Equipment Fleets through Fuel Use and Emissions Inventories, in: Sustain. Transp. Syst., American Society of Civil Engineers, n.d.: pp. 138-145.
[35]	Evaluating the Performance of Construction Equipment Operators in Egypt, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 122 (1996) 109-114.
[36]	S. Alwi, Factors influencing construction productivity in the Indonsesian context, in: Fac. Built Environ. Eng., Fukuoka, Japan, 2003. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4154/ (accessed February 26, 2016).
[37]	S. Dowdy, S. Wearden, D. Chilko, Statistics for research, 3rd ed., Wiley, 2004.
[38]	H. Nabizadeh, H.F. Haghshenas, Y. Kim, F.T.S. Aragao, Effects of rejuvenators on high-RAP mixtures based on laboratory tests of asphalt concrete (AC) mixtures and fine aggregate matrix (FAM) mixtures, Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 65-73.
[39]	H. Nabizadeh, Viscoelastic, Fatigue Damage, and Permanent Deformation Characterization of High Rap Bituminous Mixtures Using Fine Aggregate Matrix (FAM), (2015).
[40]	H. Haghshenas, H. Nabizadeh, Y. Kim, K. Santosh, Research on high-rap asphalt mixtures with rejuvenators and WMA additives (2016).
[41]	M Moosavi, H Nabizadeh, MH Mehranpour, A Nazem, A.N. Shirazi. An investigation of surface roughness measurement in rock joints with a 3D scanning device, (2013).
[42]	H.N. Rafsanjani, Y Gholipoor, H. Nabizadeh, ESCMODEL: A Model for Optimum Machinery Selection in Earth-Fill Dam Projects, World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2010 (WCECS 2010).
[43]	S. Amelian, M. Manian, S.M. Abtahi, A. Goli, Moisture sensitivity and mechanical performance assessment of warm mix asphalt containing by-product steel slag, Journal of Cleaner Production, 176 (2018) 329-337.
[44]	S. Amelian, S.M. Abtahi, S.M. Hejazi, Moisture susceptibility evaluation of asphalt mixes based on image analysis, Construction and Building Materials, 63 (2014) 294-302.
[45]	S. Amelian, Y. Kim, Evaluation of Tack Coating Practices for Asphalt Overlays in Nebraska. Nebraska Department of Transportation. SPR-P1(16) M039 (2017).
[46]	H.N. Rafsanjani, M. Chehreghani, M. Nourbakhsh, Recycling of crushed clay brick as aggregate in concrete, Applied Mechanics and Materials 94 (2011) 1087-1090.
[47]	M. Khezripour, H.N. Rafsanjani, Bucket with Flexible Width for Hoe, 2nd International Conference on Applied Research in Civil Engineering, Architecture, and Urban Planning (2015).