Shakantu, W; Muya, M; Tookey, J and Bown, P (2008) Evaluating truck empty running in construction: A case study from Cape Town, South Africa. Construction Economics and Building, 8(2), pp. 41-49. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The efficiency of any transport operation isdependent on the degree to which vehiclecapacity is utilised on the forward and returntrips. Efficiency requirements create thelogistical challenges of finding backloads forreturning vehicles. In the absence ofbackloads, vehicles travel empty on the returnjourney. Construction is fundamentallydifferent from other freight services in thatapart from requiring large quantities of materialinputs, it also generates appreciable levels ofwaste. There is therefore, potential forreducing empty running by construction trucksthrough back-loading waste to points ofdisposal, reuse, recycling or reclamation.Back-loading, which is one of the reverselogistics processes is important for returningproducts that are damaged, obsolete or wornout and those unacceptable to buyers. Backloadingis also associated with utilising sparecapacity in the supply chain to increase returnon truck investment. This paper examines theoperations and processes associated withconstruction materials and waste logistics andassesses the potential for reduction in truckempty running through utilisation of thereverse logistics concept.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | reverse logistics; back-loading; truck empty running |
| Index terms: | recycling, loading, South Africa, reverse logistics, case study, reclamation, efficiency |
| Subjects: | land management, waste management, Geography, supply chain operations, performance management, data collection methods, construction operations |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Sustainability, Supply Chain Management, Quality Management, 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