Smith, S D (1999) Earthmoving productivity estimation using linear regression techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), pp. 133-141. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The problem of accurate estimation of earthmoving productivity has intrigued many researchers for many years, but there is yet no model that will predict the output of such operations with a satisfactory degree of confidence for all situations. The problem is exacerbated by the occurrence of hauler bunching that results in many deterministic models overestimating productivity. Systems analysis methods can be used, such as queuing theory or simulation, but they are generally impractical to the average site planning engineer. This paper investigates the results obtained from over 140 separate earthmoving operations taken from four different highway construction projects. Initially, the effects of bunching are determined, and many factors that influence productivity are identified. To investigate the relationships between earthmoving operating conditions and both productivity and bunching, and to develop a deterministic model that will enable earthmoving operations to be planned for many different situations with relative ease, stepwise multiple regression techniques are used. The results indicate that there is a strong linear relationship between operating conditions and productivity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | estimation, productivity, earthmoving, highway construction, systems analysis, engineer, multiple-regression |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, financial and cost management, civil engineering, construction operations, statistical analysis, profession, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Site Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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