Edwards, D J and Holt, G D (2000) Estivate: A model for calculating excavator productivity and output costs. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7(1), pp. 52-62. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Hydraulic excavator cycle time and associated unit costs of excavation for given input estimating data, for machines operating in the UK construction industry, are predicted. Using multiple regression analysis, three variables are identified as accurate predictors of cycle time: machine weight, digging depth and machine swing angle. With a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.88, a mean percentage error (MPE) of -5.49, and a mean absolute error (MAPE) of 3.67, the cycle time model is robust; this is further validated using chi-square analysis and Pearson's correlation coefficient (on predicted and actual values of machine cycle time). An illustrative example of the model's application to determine machine productivity is given. The paper concludes with a spreadsheet model for calculating excavation costs (m3 and cost per h) which is able to deal with any combination of the three independent cycle time predictor variables and other estimator's input data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction plant; cost estimation; hydraulic excavators; machine cycle time; productivity |
| Index terms: | excavation, estimator, multiple regression analysis, estimating, unit cost, cost estimating, hydraulic, construction industry, spreadsheet, construction plant, productivity |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, statistical analysis, construction equipment, management, construction operations, data science, fluid mechanics, financial and cost management, profession |
| Topics: | Site Management, Plant and Equipment, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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