Fisher, D J and O’Connor, J T (1991) Constructability for piping automation: Field operations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(3), pp. 468-485. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper focuses on how the productivity of semi-automated piping construction for process plants may be improved through constructability-enhancement tactics. This paper answers the question regarding how field operations activities must be altered to support the automated field effort. The semi-automated environment of piping erection assumes a pipe manipulator attached to the boom of a 22-ton, rough-terrain crane for the base piece of pipe-lifting equipment. This study concentrates on horizontal process piping erection. Three major categories of constructability issues are addressed. These issues include material handling, equipment capabilities, and equipment configuration. Quantitative techniques used to compile empirical data regarding innovations for a semi-automated construction process include physical modeling and computer simulation, via a three-dimensional computed-aided design simulation software package. There is a 24% construction-productivity savings occurring when these constructability issues for the automated piping erection system are implemented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | productivity, savings, modelling, constructability, automation, automated construction process, computer simulation, software package, material handling, lifting, configuration |
| Subjects: | automation and robotics, software systems, construction integration, management, systems engineering, occupational health and safety management, economic analysis, analytical methods, product delivery, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Supply Chain Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice |
| 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