O’Connor, J T; Rusch, S E and Schulz, M J (1987) Constructability concepts for engineering and procurement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(2), pp. 235-248. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Constructability is the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, engineering, procurement and field operations to achieve overall objectives. Seven concepts for improving constructability during the engineering/procurement phase of a project are presented and analyzed. A limited number of specific applications of each concept are also presented. The concepts promote construction-driven schedules, simplified design configurations, standardization of elements, and module/preassembly designs which facilitate fabrication, transport, and installation. Concepts also address the accessibility of manpower, materials, and equipment; design modifications to facilitate construction in adverse weather; and specification improvements.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | weather, specification, constructability, accessibility, configuration, fabrication, module, standardization, design modification |
| Subjects: | air quality, manufacturing engineering, systems engineering, architectural elements, contractual condition, performance measurement, construction integration, inclusive design, design changes |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Contract Administration, Quality Management, Design Practice, Sustainability |
| 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