Optimizing Haul Unit Size and Number Based on Loading Facility Characteristics
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122, Issue 3
Abstract
Determining the optimum size and number of haul units for an earthmoving project is a task of critical importance. Past approaches fail to recognize critical characteristics of the loading facility which ultimately impact on the overall system production. Regardless of the size or number of haul units used in an earthmoving project, the hauling system's total production can never exceed the productivity of the loading facility. This paper presents an improved model for optimizing haul unit size and number based on a function of loading facility characteristics as modeled by a load growth curve. The model relies on the derivation of a cost index number (CIN) to determine the optimum size and number of haul units for the given loading facility. Detailed discussions of the impact of rounding off haul unit number are also presented to highlight the importance of this decision. The paper concludes that the use of this model provides a means to design the construction equipment fleet for a wide range of material moving projects.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Atcheson, D. B. (1993). Earthmoving equipment production rates and costs. Norseman Publishing Co., Venice, Fla., 6-32–6-34.
2.
Caterpillar performance handbook. (1993). Caterpillar Tractor Co., Peoria, Ill., 8–79.
3.
Farid, F., and Koning, T. L.(1994). “Simulation verifies queuing program for selecting loader-truck fleets.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 120(2), 386.
4.
Gates, M., and Scarpa, A.(1975). “Optimum size of hauling units.”J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 101(4), 853–860.
5.
Gransberg, D. D. (1979). “Determining optimum size and number of hauling units,” MSc thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oreg., 18–19.
6.
Griffis, F. H.(1968). “Optimizing haul fleet size using queuing theory.”J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 94(1), 75–88.
7.
Peurifoy, R. L. (1970). Construction planning, equipment, and methods . McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
8.
Peurifoy, R. L.(1975). “Cost-reducing analyses.”J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 101(2), 299–307.
9.
Peurifoy, R. L., and Ledbetter, W. B. (1985). Construction planning, equipment, and methods . McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 188–190.
10.
Phelps, R. E. (1977). “Equipment costs.”Working Paper, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oreg.
11.
Ringwald, R. C.(1987). “Bunching theory applied to minimize cost.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 113(2), 321–326.
12.
Tavakoli, A., Taye, E. D., and Erktin, M.(1989). “Equipment policy of top 400 contractors: a survey.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 115(2), 317–329.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122 • Issue 3 • September 1996
Pages: 248 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1996
Published in print: Sep 1996
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.