Navon, R; Rubinovitz, Y and Coffler, M (1996) Fully automated rebar CAD/CAM system: Economic evaluation and field implementation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), pp. 101-108. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes an economic evaluation that determines the value to the user of a fully automated rebar computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system. That value is $167,000, rising to more than $1,000,000, depending on the assumption of various economic parameters. Compared with the cost of the whole machine (about $100,000), this value is very high. The economic evaluation is based on the development of a fully automated rebar manufacturing machine, employing current technology of computerized numerically controlled machines used for the purpose. This paper also describes an actual field implementation of fully automated rebar productions in a large rebar manufacturing plant. The implementation was based on the integration of a CAD/CAM system with the existing setup of the plant. A communication link was developed to enable the data to be transferred after being extracted and processed with the CAD/CAM system.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | computer aided design, rebar, integration, implementation, economic evaluation |
| Subjects: | computational design, financial analysis, contractual arrangements, building materials, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Procurement, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Digital Applications, Organizational Design |
| 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