Concreting operations: the relationship between unit costs and unit emissions

Mustaffa, N K and Carmichael, D G (2019) Concreting operations: the relationship between unit costs and unit emissions. International Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), pp. 427-435. ISSN 1562-3599

Abstract

The reduction of emissions within construction is seen as an agreed direction worldwide. In this light, the paper examines unit emissions in concreting operations, and provides guidelines for their reduction. Unit emissions and unit costs are calculated through a queuing model for concreting operations where trucks cycle between a batching plant and site. A time-production constraint exists. Sensitivity-style analyses are used to evaluate the influence of truck capacity, unloading policy, pumping rate (or the equivalent for crane usage), travel time and fuel type on optimum unit emissions and unit cost. It is demonstrated that the optimum truck fleet size for unit emissions is the same as that for unit cost under a range of different operation parameters. The results indicate the most environmentally aware way to configure and manage concreting operations. The paper demonstrates that by not operating at minimum unit cost, then emissions increase. To date, the foci of studies involving concreting operations have been on production and truck dispatching. This paper is original in establishing the configuration of concreting operations for least unit emissions.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: concreting operations; optimum truck fleet size; queuing analysis; unit costs; unit emissions
Index terms: truck dispatching, concreting, unit cost, configuration, unit emission
Subjects: building construction, systems engineering, financial and cost management, environmental impact, transport systems
Topics: Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Supply Chain Management, Cost Management
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here