Stevens, J D and Murray, A L (1994) Modified roof erection system. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(4), pp. 828-837. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Conventional steel roof erection for an industrial building is a hazardous operation. It is also labor-intensive and weather-dependent. With U.S. construction trades facing a skilled-labor shortage, and with constructors pressured to shorten construction schedules, a more efficient roof-erection process is needed. To address this need, a design-build contractor developed the Modified Roof Erection System (MRES). The MRES involves erecting roof modules at a level near the ground, then hoisting them into place. Potential benefits of this process include: (1) Increased safety; (2) higher productivity; (3) less impact from skilled labor shortages; (4) shortened construction schedule; (5) better quality; and (6) reduced cost. Prior to implementing the MRES, the following questions had to be addressed: (1) Do we know how to perform such an operation?; (2) will this technology be acceptable to our customers?; (3) will our subcontractors embrace this type work?; and (4) are we willing to accept the risks involved? This paper discusses development of the MRES process and presents a case study of its initial trial.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | design-build contractor, module, labour shortage, roof, case study, productivity, shortages, weather, subcontractor, hoisting, skilled labour |
| Subjects: | management, architectural elements, design practice, economics, construction operations, economic analysis, data collection methods, air quality, practitioner |
| Topics: | Site Management, Human Resources, Supply Chain Management, Design Practice, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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