Gransberg, D D (1996) Optimizing haul unit size and number based on loading facility characteristics. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(3), pp. 248-253. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Determining the optimum size and number of haul units for an earthmoving project is a task of critical importance. Past approaches fail to recognize critical characteristics of the loading facility which ultimately impact on the overall system production. Regardless of the size or number of haul units used in an earthmoving project, the hauling system's total production can never exceed the productivity of the loading facility. This paper presents an improved model for optimizing haul unit size and number based on a function of loading facility characteristics as modeled by a load growth curve. The model relies on the derivation of a cost index number (CIN) to determine the optimum size and number of haul units for the given loading facility. Detailed discussions of the impact of rounding off haul unit number are also presented to highlight the importance of this decision. The paper concludes that the use of this model provides a means to design the construction equipment fleet for a wide range of material moving projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | cost index, productivity, construction equipment, loading, earthmoving |
| Subjects: | construction operations, economic analysis, management, construction equipment |
| Topics: | Plant and Equipment, Business Strategy, Site Management |
| 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