Zayed, T M and Halpin, D W (2004) Quantitative assessment for piles productivity factors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(3), pp. 405-414. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The management process of any construction operation usually can be defined as a chain of decisions. A decision-maker can bid, plan, and organize the bored pile projects based on an accurate estimate of productivity. To estimate productivity efficiently, piling process qualitative and quantitative factors have to be considered. This paper focuses on assessing the effect of subjective factors on bored pile construction productivity. A productivity index (PI) model is developed to represent this subjective effect in refining productivity assessment using simulation and deterministic techniques. The analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy logic are used to develop the proposed PI model that relies on the actual performance of 10 main piling process subjective factors. Subjective data were collected from bored pile (drilled shaft) contractors considering these subjective factors. The developed PI model implementation to piling process resulted in PI=0.7. This value has been validated using simulation model outputs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; fuzzy sets; pile foundations; productivity |
| Index terms: | fuzzy set, implementation, productivity, pile foundation, construction operation, construction productivity, fuzzy logic, estimate |
| Subjects: | construction operations, management, contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, operations management, data science, decision-making and optimization, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Site Management, Procurement, Cost Management, Digital Applications, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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