Easa, S M (1987) Earthwork allocations with nonconstant unit costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(1), pp. 34-50. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Existing linear programming methods of earthwork allocations in road construction assume that the unit costs of earthwork activities are constant. This paper investigates the factors that affect the variations of unit costs and presents a model of earthwork allocations that incorporates nonconstant unit costs. The unit costs may vary with the total quantity of materials moved from cut to fill sections or disposal sites and from borrow pits to till sections. For earthwork from cut sections, the unit costs can be established from the known quantities of cut sections (and other operating conditions) and can then be treated as constants in the model. For earthwork from borrow pits, the unit costs also vary with the total quantity to be moved from a borrow pit to till sections, but this quantity is unknown. These unit costs are formulated as three-component stepwise functions. The solution of the model is explored and a computer program, EARTHN, which solves the model quite efficiently, is developed. The model is applied to a numerical example to illustrate its use, and possible extensions of the model are examined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | linear programming, variation, road construction, earthwork, computer program, unit cost |
| Subjects: | software systems, civil engineering, financial and cost management, algorithms, contractual condition, construction methods |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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