Kang, S and Seo, J (2013) GIS method for haul road layout planning in large earthmoving projects: Framework and analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(2), pp. 236-246. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This study presents a geographic information system (GIS)-based method for determining the optimal layout of a haul route for large earthmoving projects. The methodology focuses on the use of cost distance measurements to implement a least-cost path analysis to calculate the route with the shortest weighted distance between cut and fill areas. Various factors such as truck speed, construction costs, and land use that affect haul road layout are investigated. Linear interpolations based on linguistic evaluations of experienced field experts are utilized to quantify the factors. An earthmoving project from a large-scale dam construction was used as a case study to verify the applicability of the proposed method, and the route produced with the new method was compared to real road design data. The results showed the potential of the method as a practical approach to determining the optimal haul route for earthmoving.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | earthmoving; earthwork construction; geographic information systems; haul roads; least-cost path algorithm; route planning |
| Index terms: | dam construction, methodology, land use, earthwork, path analysis, geographic information system, earthmoving, construction cost, case study |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, construction operations, real estate economics, construction methods, data collection methods, statistical analysis, geographical techniques and analysis, infrastructure engineering, research methods |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Site Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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