Eldin, N N (1988) Constructability improvement of project designs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(4), pp. 631-640. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a case study where cost and time savings were realized by improving the constructability of a water injection facilities project. The project included a 4.2 mile long causeway providing a 30 foot wide roadway for maintenance rigs, and a 4.6 mile water injection pipeline to support 24 offshore water injection wells. The constructability improvement program was implemented a few months after the start of the construction phase. The net savings realized outweighed the cost and time needed for implementing the constructability improvement program. The late implementation of the program necessitated the redesign of one of the project’s major elements. However, the extra costs and delays that were forecasted for the original design made the application advantageous to the overall project objectives.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | savings, program, case study, constructability, implementation, redesign, project design, time saving, construction phase, injection, pipeline |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, project delivery, construction integration, manufacturing engineering, time analysis, software systems, design methods, infrastructure and transport systems, contractual arrangements, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Procurement, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Time Control, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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