Comparative assessment of deterministic methodologies for estimating excavation productivity

Antonios Panas, John-Paris Pantouvakis, Maria Kalogiannaki
{"title":"Comparative assessment of deterministic methodologies for estimating excavation productivity","authors":"Antonios Panas, John-Paris Pantouvakis, Maria Kalogiannaki","doi":"10.2478/otmcj-2023-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper investigates the prediction capability of deterministic methodologies in estimating construction productivity for earthmoving operations. Published literature includes several estimation methodologies stemming from (a) equipment manufacturers’ manuals, (b) editions from German contractors’ associations or individual researchers and (c) textbook editions. The purpose of this research is to assess the yielded productivity estimation results under the prism of 14 estimation methodologies. It is – to the authors’ best knowledge – the first research attempt for the comparative evaluation of such a diverse set of estimation methodologies, with the aim of quantifying their effects on the operations analysis in earthmoving works. A uniform mathematical modelling approach is used to formulate the relevant estimation equations and, subsequently, a real-case scenario of an earthmoving project in Greece is used as a benchmark against which the robustness of each methodology is assessed. A sensitivity analysis on main productivity factors concludes the research. The preliminary results indicate that equipment manufacturers’ methods are more optimistic and present higher sensitivity to specific productivity factors (e.g. swing angle, excavation depth), whereas the German-oriented approaches are more conservative with less variability due to differing productivity factors.","PeriodicalId":157020,"journal":{"name":"Organization, technology and management in construction: An international journal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization, technology and management in construction: An international journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2023-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper investigates the prediction capability of deterministic methodologies in estimating construction productivity for earthmoving operations. Published literature includes several estimation methodologies stemming from (a) equipment manufacturers’ manuals, (b) editions from German contractors’ associations or individual researchers and (c) textbook editions. The purpose of this research is to assess the yielded productivity estimation results under the prism of 14 estimation methodologies. It is – to the authors’ best knowledge – the first research attempt for the comparative evaluation of such a diverse set of estimation methodologies, with the aim of quantifying their effects on the operations analysis in earthmoving works. A uniform mathematical modelling approach is used to formulate the relevant estimation equations and, subsequently, a real-case scenario of an earthmoving project in Greece is used as a benchmark against which the robustness of each methodology is assessed. A sensitivity analysis on main productivity factors concludes the research. The preliminary results indicate that equipment manufacturers’ methods are more optimistic and present higher sensitivity to specific productivity factors (e.g. swing angle, excavation depth), whereas the German-oriented approaches are more conservative with less variability due to differing productivity factors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
估算挖掘生产力的确定性方法的比较评估
摘要本文研究了确定性方法在估算土方工程施工生产率方面的预测能力。已发表的文献包括几种估算方法,这些方法来自(a)设备制造商的手册,(b)德国承包商协会或个人研究人员的版本,以及(c)教科书版本。本研究的目的是在14种评估方法的棱镜下评估产出的生产力评估结果。据作者所知,这是第一次对如此多样化的评估方法进行比较评估的研究尝试,目的是量化它们对土方工程操作分析的影响。使用统一的数学建模方法来制定相关的估计方程,随后,将希腊一个土方工程的实际情况作为基准,对每种方法的稳健性进行评估。对主要生产要素进行敏感性分析。初步结果表明,设备制造商的方法更为乐观,对特定的生产力因素(如摆动角度、挖掘深度)具有更高的敏感性,而德国导向的方法更为保守,由于不同的生产力因素,变异性较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Life-cycle cost estimation of a building structure: An example of partition walls The factors that affect constructability in Iraq Disruptive method for managing BIM design and construction using Kanban A competency framework for strategic planning managers in multi-business holding organisations Comparative assessment of deterministic methodologies for estimating excavation productivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1