Navon, R and Shpatnitsky, Y (2005) Field experiments in automated monitoring of road construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(4), pp. 487-493. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The growing need for better monitoring and control of road construction projects, together with rapid technological progress, have led to a number of interesting developments, which are reviewed below. The present paper describes the development of a real-time monitoring model capable of measuring productivity and progress automatically. The model, which uses global positioning system for on-site automated data collection, was tested and validated on site. The results of the field experiments have indicated that the expected accuracy level of the model can be assessed as ±4-5% for unstructured activities and even higher for more structured ones, such as asphalt spreading. The paper concludes that it is possible to automatically measure the performance of earthmoving operations. Based on the results, it also highlights the needs for further research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | automated; control methods; data collection; earthmoving; feedback control; global positioning; monitoring; road construction |
| Index terms: | productivity, control method, earthmoving, monitoring, road construction, experiment, accuracy |
| Subjects: | monitoring and control, professional development, management, civil engineering, construction operations, control systems, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Site Management |
| 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