Deterministic models for assessing productivity and cost of bored piles

Zayed, T M and Halpin, D W (2005) Deterministic models for assessing productivity and cost of bored piles. Construction Management and Economics, 23(5), pp. 531-543. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

The assessment process of productivity and cost of bored pile construction is dictated by unseen subsurface obstacles, lack of contractor experience and site planning. These problems complicate the estimator's role in evaluating pile equipment productivity and cost. Current research discusses the assessment of piling process productivity and cost using the deterministic technique. Data are collected through questionnaires, site interviews and telephone calls to experts in various construction companies. Many variables have been considered in the piling construction process, such as pile size, depth, pouring method, soil type and construction method. Five deterministic models have been designated to assess productivity, cycle time and cost. The developed models are validated whereas 79% of the outputs have been predicted with more than 75% accuracy. Consequently, three sets of charts have been developed to provide the decision-maker with a solid planning, scheduling and control tool for piling projects. If a pile has 60′ depth with Φ-18 (18″ diameter pile) in clay soil using a 5′ auger height, the cycle time is estimated as 56 and 65.5 minutes; however, productivity is 6 and 5 holes/day for dry and wet methods, respectively.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: bored pile; cost; cycle time; deterministic models; productivity
Index terms: interview, scheduling, construction method, construction company, accuracy, construction process, estimator, questionnaire, productivity
Subjects: data collection methods, profession, organization, operations research, professional development, management, building construction
Topics: Time Control, Site Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management, 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