Zahlentafeln für den Baubetrieb

Hoffmann, Manfred; Krause, Thomas; Olk, Ulrich; Pick, Jürgen; Schmitt, Oskar M.; Winkler, Norbert

doi:10.1007/978-3-322-93883-1

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter is often the case, especially when innovative construction techniques are applied or new equipment is deployed for a specific construction activity. Such generic, process-oriented methodologies have been published in equipment manufacturers' manuals (Liebherr 2003;Komatsu 2013;Volvo 2015;Caterpillar 2016), editions from contractors' associations or individual researchers in Germany (Garbotz 1966;BML 1983;Kühn 1984;Kotte 1997;Hüster 2005;Hoffmann 2006;Bauer 2007;Girmscheidt 2010) and textbook editions (Peurifoy and Schexnayder 2002;Nunnally 2007).…”

Section: Theoretical Concepts Of Productivity Estimation Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative assessment of deterministic methodologies for estimating excavation productivity

Panas,

Pantouvakis,

Kalogiannaki

2023

Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract