Paliari, José Carlos (2008) Method for the prognosis of productivity and the unitary consumption of materials: Hydraulic building systems. PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
The objective of this work is to elaborate a method aimed at evaluating the labour productivity in the execution of hydraulic systems and the unitary consumption of materials in these systems in two distinct moments: at the undertaking viability phase (simplified method) and at the architecture project phase (analytical method). The concepts that guided the elaboration of the proposed method involving conceptions on labour productivity, unitary consumption of materials and building systems will be presented. Besides these theoretical concepts, the detailing of the collection method and data processing for the evaluation of these indices will be performed, which include from the data collection planning, the data collection itself to the data processing. The results on labour productivity correspond to the survey of these parameters in four building sites in the state of São Paulo, while those on the unitary consumption of materials are a result of analysis and survey of information from 12 hydraulic systems of multiple-pavement residential buildings. The evaluation of labour productivity indices considering tasks and subtasks inherent to the execution of building systems with different effort levels is one of the contributions of this research, unlike budgeting handbooks that bring these parameters only in terms of the type of material and connections employed. Regarding to the unitary consumption of materials, the simplified method allows estimating the quantity of pipes and connections, considering the type and number of apartments per floor and their respective area as input variables. The prognostic of these quantities using the analytical method is performed based on the number and type of rooms provided with hydraulic building systems in the apartment and on the type, number of water consumption/intake points of these apartments, as well as on equations elaborated from the observation of conceptions in the projects analyzed. The proposed methods for unitary consumption of materials were applied to a real case and the difference between the quantity of pipes and connections measured and predicted was 16% (pipes) and 22% (connections), for the simplified method, and 1% (pipes) and 4% (connections) for the analytical method, validating the proposed methods for these systems. The difference between labour employed (man-hour) predicted using budgeting handbooks and those predicted using the proposed method was 71%, indicating the need of further analysis of labour productivity indices in the hydraulic building systems.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Souza, Ubiraci Espinelli Lemes de |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | budget; labour productivity; unitary consumption of materials |
| Index terms: | labour productivity, survey, water consumption, consumption, budgeting, estimating, residential building, building site, building system, productivity, hydraulic, data processing |
| Subjects: | site and location studies, management, engineering systems, consumer economics, construction type, financial and cost management, environmental resource management, data collection methods, financial management, data science, fluid mechanics |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Site Management, Geographical Context, Cost Management, Research Practice, Sustainability, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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