Comparative assessment of deterministic methodologies for estimating excavation productivity

Panas, Antonios; Pantouvakis, John-Paris; Kalogiannaki, Maria

Comparative assessment of deterministic methodologies for estimating excavation productivity

Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal

Volume 15 (2023): Issue 1 (January 2023)

By:

Antonios Panas, John-Paris Pantouvakis and Maria Kalogiannaki

Open Access

|Sep 2023

Figures & Tables

Comparative estimation of cycle time according to equipment’s engine power for equipment manufacturers’ manuals. (Source: Own study).

Values specification for productivity factors’ coefficients (Vtruck, truck volume; Vexc, excavator bucket volume; hexc, excavation depth; hmax, maximum excavation depth). (a) Swing angle coefficient. (b) Digging depth coefficient for different DIN 18300 categories (3&4: soft soil, 5&6: hard soil). (c) Excavator – truck volume match factor coefficient. (d) Swing – depth coefficient for different swing angles. (Source: Own study).

Variation of excavator productivity in relation to equipment type. (Source: Own study).

Productivity estimation results for combinatory operation of excavator and loader - truck system. (Source: Own study).

Graphical illustration of productivity variation for CAT 345B excavator based on swing angle. (Source: Own study).

Productivity variation for CAT 345B excavator based on excavation depth_

Productivity results (m³/h) and variations depending on the excavation depth
	3 m	2 m	Percentage of variation	4 m	Percentage of variation	5 m	Percentage of variation
Komatsu (2013)	573.23	677.45	18.18%	573.23	0.00%	573.23	0.00%
Caterpillar (2016)	523.06	550.59	5.26%	498.15	–4.76%	475.51	–9.09%
Liebherr (2003)	540.02	540.02	0.00%	540.02	0.00%	540.02	0.00%
Volvo (2015)	608.00	608.00	0.00%	608.00	0.00%	608.00	0.00%
Nunnally (2007)	498.15	512.38	2.86%	464.94	–6.67%	445.96	–10.48%
Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2002)	383.58	361.78	–5.68%	353.06	–7.95%	326.91	–14.77%
BML (1983) and Hoffmann (2006)	438.60	458.90	4.63%	423.60	–3.42%	409.60	–6.61%
Kühn (1984)	311.40	325.82	4.63%	300.76	–3.42%	290.81	–6.61%
Hüster (2005)	280.70	293.70	4.63%	271.11	–3.42%	262.14	–6.61%
Bauer (2007)	444.08	464.64	4.63%	428.90	–3.42%	414.72	–6.61%
Girmscheidt (2010)	335.53	351.06	4.63%	324.06	–3.42%	313.34	–6.61%
Garbotz (1966) and Kotte (1997)	265.74	278.04	4.63%	256.65	–3.42%	248.17	–6.61%

Comparative evaluation of CAT 345B excavation productivity_

Equipment – model:						Excavator – Caterpillar 345B
Soil type						Loose soil
Work method						Excavation and soil disposal on truck
	Komatsu (2013)	Caterpillar (2016)	Liebherr (2003)	Volvo (2015)	Nunnally (2007)	Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2002)	BML (1983) and Hoffmann (2006)	Kühn (1984)	Hüster (2005)	Bauer (2007)	Girmscheidt (2010)	Garbotz (1966) and Kotte (1997)
V_(SAE/CECE)(m₃)	4	4	4	4	4	4	3.48	3.48	3.48	4	4	3.48
t_exc (sec)	20.50	20.00	23.00	19.50	24.00	24.00	22.00	22.00	22.00	22.00	22.00	22.00
f_s	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23	1.23
f_fill	1.15	1.05	1.10	1.05	1.00	1.05	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20	1.20
f_depth	1.30	×	×	×	×	×	1.13	1.13	1.13	1.13	1.13	1.13
f_swing	×	×	×	×	×	×	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95
f_swing-depth	×	×	×	×	1.05	0.88	×	×	×	×	×	×
f_dump	×	×	×	×	×	×	0.90	0.90	0.90	0.90	×	0.90
f_skill	×	0.75	0.85	×	×	0.75	×	0.71	0.80	×	0.80	0.80
f_avail	×	×	×	0.85	×	×	×	×	0.80	×	0.85	0.85
f_vol	×	×	×	×	×	×	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.90	0.90	0.92
f_wear	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	0.90	0.90	0.90
f_alt	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	0.99
f_E	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75
Q (m³/h)	573.23	523.06	540.02	608.00	498.15	383.58	438.60	311.40	280.70	444.08	335.53	265.74

Equipment deployment combinations and productivity results_

		Working scenarios – operational combinations
Available equipment		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
		Four trucks – CAT 725C
One excavator – CAT 345B		3	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
One excavator – CAT 330		-	-	1	2	1	-	1	-	-
One excavator – O&K RH16		-	-	-	-	1	2	-	1	-
One loader – CAT 966H		1	2	1	1	1	1	2	2	3
Work type		Transportation of loose soil
Working scenarios	Komatsu (2013)	Caterpillar (2016)	Liebherr (2003)	Volvo (2015)	Nunnally (2007)	Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2002)	BML (1983), Bauer (2007), Garbotz (1966) and Hoffmann (2006)	Kühn (1984)	Hüster (2005)	Girmscheidt (2010)
1	116.21	107.22	111.78	111.82	102.42	107.98	114.76	111.12	112.30	127.17
2	112.65	106.47	111.09	111.66	100.79	107.57	119.23	115.47	116.46	127.51
3	115.57	110.13	111.15	114.90	104.78	111.41	114.30	110.70	111.67	126.63
4	114.93	113.03	110.53	117.97	107.14	114.84	113.83	110.28	111.03	126.09
5	115.68	110.26	111.14	115.08	108.43	111.80	114.46	110.89	111.59	126.82
6	116.42	107.49	111.76	112.19	109.72	108.76	115.09	111.49	112.15	127.55
7	112.01	109.38	110.47	114.73	103.15	111.00	118.77	115.05	115.83	126.97
8	112.75	106.61	111.08	111.84	104.44	107.96	119.40	115.66	116.38	127.70
9	109.09	105.72	110.41	111.49	99.17	107.15	123.71	119.82	120.62	127.84

Productivity factors’ values specification and comparative analysis_

Productivity estimation methodology
Productivity factor	Group A	Group B
		Equipment manufacturers	Textbook methodologies
Bucket fill factor (f_fill)	Values based on the DIN 18300:2012 standard within the range 0.72–1.40	Indicative values within the range 0.60–1.20
Job efficiency factor (f_E)	Same approach for all methodologies: f_E = (60–∑[Delays in min])/60
Operator skill factor (f_skill)	Values according to operator’s skill and experience	Implicit effect included in cycle time estimation
Equipment availability factor (f_avail)	Values according to equipment’s working hours within the range 0.65–1.00 (i.e. <1,000 hr f_availl = 1; 3,500–5,000 hr f_avail= 0.65)	No specific values’ range, but empirically defined as a percentage with probable value ~80%	-
Swing angle factor (f_swing)	See Figure 2a	Implicit effect included in the cycle time estimation
Excavation depth factor (f_depth)	See Figure 2b	Same as f_swing
Combined swing angle and digging depth factor (f_swing-depth)	-	-	See Figure 2d
Bucket dump factor (f_dump)	f_dump < 1 for targeted dump	-	-
Excavator-truck volumes match factor (f_vol)	See Figure 2c	-	-
Bucket teeth wear factor (f_wear)	f_wear < 1 for worn teeth	-	-
Altitude factor (f_alt)	f_alt < 1 for > 300 m altitude	f_alt < 1 for > 760 m altitude	-

Productivity variation for CAT 345B excavator based on swing angle_

Productivity results (m³/h) and variations depending on the swing angle
	120°	60°	Percentage of variation	90°	Percentage of variation	180°	Percentage of variation
Komatsu (2013)	573.23	671.50	17.14%	618.49	7.89%	534.15	–6.82%
Caterpillar (2016)	523.06	581.18	11.11%	550.59	5.26%	475.51	–9.09%
Liebherr (2003)	540.02	621.03	15.00%	591.45	9.52%	496.82	–8.00%
Volvo (2015)	608.00	658.67	8.33%	634.01	4.28%	564.57	–7.14%
Nunnally (2007)	498.15	583.55	17.14%	536.10	7.62%	441.22	–11.43%
Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2002)	383.58	505.62	31.82%	435.88	13.64%	309.48	–19.32%
BML (1983) and Hoffmann (2006)	438.60	484.76	10.53%	461.68	5.26%	406.28	–7.37%
Kühn (1984)	311.40	344.18	10.53%	327.79	5.26%	288.46	–7.37%
Hüster (2005)	280.70	310.25	10.53%	295.48	5.26%	260.02	–7.37%
Bauer (2007)	444.08	490.82	10.53%	467.45	5.26%	411.36	–7.37%
Girmscheidt (2010)	335.53	370.84	10.53%	353.19	5.26%	310.80	–7.37%
Garbotz (1966) and Kotte (1997)	265.74	293.71	10.53%	279.72	5.26%	246.16	–7.37%

Comparative evaluation of productivity estimation methodologies’ factors_

No.	Estimation methodology	Productivity factors
1	Bauer (2007)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_vol, f_wear, f_E
2	BML (1983)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_dump, f_vol, f_E
3	Caterpillar (2016)	f_s, f_fill, f _skill, f_E
4	Volvo (2015)	f_s, f_fill, f _availl, f_E
5	Garbotz (1966)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_vol, f_wear, f_alt, f_avail, f_skill, f_E
6	Girmscheidt (2010)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_vol, f_wear, f_avail, f_skill, f_E
7	Hoffmann (2006)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_dump, f_vol, f_E
8	Hüster (2005)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_E
9	Komatsu (2013)	f_s, f_fill, f_depth, f_E
10	Kotte (1997)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_dump, f_vol, f_wear, f_alt, f_avail, f_skill, f_E
11	Kühn (1984)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing, f_depth, f_dump, f_vol, f_skill, f_E
12	Liebherr (2003)	f_s, f_fill, f_skill, f_E
13	Nunnally (2007)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing-depth, f_E
14	Peurifoy and Schexnayder (2002)	f_s, f_fill, f_swing-depth, f_skill, f_E

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2023-0007 | Journal eISSN: 1847-6228 | Journal ISSN: 1847-5450

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 63 - 78

Submitted on: Aug 31, 2022

Accepted on: Jan 29, 2023

Published on: Sep 11, 2023

Published by: University of Zagreb

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

construction productivity,

Related subjects:

Introductions and overviews,

Engineering, other

© 2023 Antonios Panas, John-Paris Pantouvakis, Maria Kalogiannaki, published by University of Zagreb
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 15 (2023): Issue 1 (January 2023)Next article

Comparative assessment of deterministic methodologies for estimating excavation productivity

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1:

Fig. 2:

Fig. 3:

Fig. 4:

Fig. 5:

Fig. 6:

Fig. 7:

Productivity variation for CAT 345B excavator based on excavation depth_

Comparative evaluation of CAT 345B excavation productivity_

Equipment deployment combinations and productivity results_

Productivity factors’ values specification and comparative analysis_

Productivity variation for CAT 345B excavator based on swing angle_

Comparative evaluation of productivity estimation methodologies’ factors_

Paradigm

My account