Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Engineering Management

Front. Eng    2017, Vol. 4 Issue (2) : 138-145     https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2017013
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Analyzing sustainability of construction equipment in the state of California
Hakob AVETISYAN1(), Miroslaw SKIBNIEWSKI2, Mohammad MOZAFFARPOUR1
1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, E-209, 800 N. State College Blvd, California State University Fullerton, CA 92834, USA
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Glenn L. Martin Hall 1188, University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742, USA
Download: PDF(152 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Construction equipment encompasses highly polluting machines adversely affecting the environment. Management tools are necessary for sustainability assessment of construction equipment fleets to allow contractors to reduce their emissions and comply with local or federal regulations. In addition to management tools, there is a need for a metrics that will allow companies to accurately assess the sustainability of their construction equipment fleets. The State of California USA is adopting innovative approaches to reduce adverse impact of humans on the environment. Once successfully implemented, the chances are that such practices attract other states to adopt similar approaches. This paper presents an evaluation of construction equipment fleets and data analysis. When measured and recorded, such results can be used along with decision-support tools for selection and utilization of construction equipment. The metrics for construction equipment evaluation as well as the tool for sustainable decision-making are developed based on readily available data from manufacturers or maintenance shops without a need for additional effort by contractors or government agencies for their adoption. The metrics developed and the decision support tool incorporate logical strategies of supply chain management for optimal selection of construction equipment for construction site while taking into account the availability, cost, and mobilization related constraints. The metrics and the model can benefit both the government agencies responsible for inspection of fleets and owners of construction companies in their decision-making processes related to environmental sustainability.

Keywords Construction equipment      greenhouse gas emissions      sustainability index      sustainable construction     
Corresponding Authors: Hakob AVETISYAN   
Just Accepted Date: 08 June 2017   Online First Date: 05 July 2017    Issue Date: 17 July 2017
 Cite this article:   
Hakob AVETISYAN,Miroslaw SKIBNIEWSKI,Mohammad MOZAFFARPOUR. Analyzing sustainability of construction equipment in the state of California[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(2): 138-145.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2017013
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2017/V4/I2/138
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Hakob AVETISYAN
Miroslaw SKIBNIEWSKI
Mohammad MOZAFFARPOUR
Engine PowerTierYearCOHCNMHC+ NOxNOxPM
kW<8Tier 120008.0 (6.0)-10.5 (7.8)-1.0 (0.75)
(hp<11)Tier 220058.0 (6.0)-7.5 (5.6)-0.8 (0.6)
8≤kW<19Tier 120006.6 (4.9)-9.5 (7.1)-0.8 (0.6)
(11≤hp<25)Tier 220056.6 (4.9)-7.5 (5.6)-0.8 (0.6)
19≤kW<37Tier 119995.5 (4.1)-9.5 (7.1)-0.8 (0.6)
(25≤hp<50)Tier 220045.5 (4.1)-7.5 (5.6)-0.6 (0.45)
37≤kW<75Tier 11998---9.2 (6.9)-
(50≤hp<100)Tier 220045.0 (3.7)-7.5 (5.6)-0.4 (0.3)
Tier 320085.0 (3.7)-4.7 (3.5)--†
75≤kW<130Tier 11997---9.2 (6.9)-
(100≤hp<175)Tier 220035.0 (3.7)-6.6 (4.9)-0.3 (0.22)
Tier 320075.0 (3.7)-4.0 (3.0)--†
130≤kW<225Tier 1199611.4 (8.5)1.3 (1.0)-9.2 (6.9)0.54 (0.4)
(175≤hp<300)Tier 220033.5 (2.6)-6.6 (4.9)-0.2 (0.15)
Tier 320063.5 (2.6)-4.0 (3.0)--†
225≤kW<450Tier 1199611.4 (8.5)1.3 (1.0)-9.2 (6.9)0.54 (0.4)
(300≤hp<600)Tier 220013.5 (2.6)-6.4 (4.8)-0.2 (0.15)
Tier 320063.5 (2.6)-4.0 (3.0)--†
450≤kW<560Tier 1199611.4 (8.5)1.3 (1.0)-9.2 (6.9)0.54 (0.4)
(600≤hp<750)Tier 220023.5 (2.6)-6.4 (4.8)-0.2 (0.15)
Tier 320063.5 (2.6)-4.0 (3.0)--†
kW≥560Tier 1200011.4 (8.5)1.3 (1.0)-9.2 (6.9)0.54 (0.4)
(hp≥750)Tier 220063.5 (2.6)-6.4 (4.8)-0.2 (0.15)
Tab.1  EPA Tier 1 to 3 non-road diesel engine emission standards in g/kWh (g/bhp·h) (Source: https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php)
Year of manufactureAgeHorsepowerA&HPSQRT of A&HPNSQRT of A&HPSustainability Index
2015175075027.390.180.82
20142750150038.730.260.74
20133750225047.430.320.68
20124750300054.770.370.63
20115750375061.240.410.59
20106750450067.080.450.55
20097750525072.460.480.52
20088750600077.460.520.48
20079750675082.160.550.45
200610750750086.600.580.42
200511750825090.830.610.39
200412750900094.870.630.37
200313750975098.740.660.34
20021475010,500102.470.680.32
20011575011,250106.070.710.29
20001675012,000109.540.730.27
19991775012,750112.920.750.25
19981875013,500116.190.770.23
19971975014,250119.370.800.20
19962075015,000122.470.820.18
19952175015,750125.500.840.16
19942275016,500128.450.860.14
19932375017,250131.340.880.12
19922475018,000134.160.890.11
19912575018,750136.930.910.09
19902675019,500139.640.930.07
19892775020,250142.300.950.05
19882875021,000144.910.970.03
19872975021,750147.480.980.02
19863075022,500150.001.000.00
Tab.2  Sustainability Index of achievements and the range of possible improvements
Fig.1  Graphical representation of the SI for a 750 HP equipment by year
J=Set of origin sites where the contractor operates
K=Set of destination sites where the contractor operates
X={0,1,2,3}, set of all considered Tier levels
Y=Set of equipment types to be considered (e.g. excavators, tractors, loaders)
cxyjk=Cost of operating (or renting, leasing as well as owning) each type of considered equipment yÎY in Tier xÎX, at site jk, ÎJ, kÎK
cmxyjk=Cost of moving each type of considered equipment yÎY in Tier xÎX, from site j site k, jÎJ, kÎK
gxyjk=GHG emissions rate for equipment type yÎY, in Tier xÎX, at site jk, jÎJ, kÎK, expressed in CO2e
wjkt=Number of working days at site jk, jÎJ, kÎK, in any period tÎS
βjkt=Discounting factor for inflation at site jk, jÎJ, kÎK, by period tÎS
Tab.3  
αxyjkt= Number of equipment pieces of type y, yÎY, belonging to Tier level x, xÎX, at site jk, jÎJ, kÎK, to be utilized during period tÎS
Tab.4  
Activity typeUnitQuantityEstimated budget ($)Scheduled duration (days)
ExcavationCY17,95519,33510
EarthmovingCY10,36818,8846
Tab.5  Case study activity types and specifications
Activity typeUnitDaily production rate of contractor
ExcavationCY/Day2000
EarthmovingCY/Day2000
Tab.6  Production rates for case study activities
EquipmentTechnical spec.Daily capacity
CategoryModelIDID#Engine power (gross HP)UnitTier 0Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3
Articulated haulerVolvo A35DArtA35D1393CY/Day624624624624
Articulated haulerCAT T730ArtT7302375CY/Day528528528528
DozerJohn Deere 550JDoz550J385CY/Day436436436436
DozerJohn Deere 750JDoz750J4145CY/Day761761761761
Tab.7  Case study available equipment
Activity typeAllowed equipment
ExcavationJohn Deere 550JDoz550J
John Deere 750JDoz750J
EarthmovingVolvo A35DArtA35D
CAT T730ArtT730
Tab.8  Allowed equipment for each activity in case study
Equipment typeCost
CategoryModelIDID#UnitTier 0Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3
Articulated haulerVolvo A35DArtA35D1$/Day617653726871
Articulated haulerCAT T730ArtT7302$/Day527558620744
DozerJohn Deere 550JDoz550J3$/Day399422469563
DozerJohn Deere 750JDoz750J4$/Day304322358430
Tab.9  Daily costs of each equipment in case study
Equipment typeSustainability Index
CategoryModelIDID#Tier 0Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3
Articulated haulerVolvo A35DArtA35D10.700.770.840.88
Articulated haulerCAT T730ArtT73020.720.790.860.90
DozerJohn Deere 550JDoz550J30.650.720.780.81
DozerJohn Deere 750JDoz750J40.700.770.840.88
Tab.10  Sustainability Index of each equipment in the case study
Equipment typeProposed number
CategoryModelIDID#Tier 0Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3
Articulated haulerVolvo A35DArtA35D10110
Articulated haulerCAT T730ArtT73020010
DozerJohn Deere 550JDoz550J30000
DozerJohn Deere 750JDoz750J40021
Tab.11  Optimization Model results for the case study
1 ARB (2007). “OFFROAD model”. Off-Road Emissions Inventory. California Environmental Protection Agency. , 2010-4-10
2 ARB (2010a). “Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for in use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets and the Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements”. California Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadisor.pdf
3 (2010b). “Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program”. California Environmental Protection Agency.
4 Avetisyan H, Miller-Hooks E, Melanta S (2012). Decision models to support greenhouse gas emissions reduction from transportation construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5): 631–641
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000477
5 Avetisyan H, Skibniewski M (2014). “Web–Based Management System for Construction Equipment Fleets: Global and Local Allocation of Equipment”. Project Management Symposium, MD, College Park. ISSN 2374–9377, 34–43
6 DieselNet (2013). “Tier 1–3 Emission Standards”.
7 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009a). “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. Climate Change.
8 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009b). “EPA NONROAD Model Updates of 2008”. April 2009 International Emission Inventory Conference.
9 Fan H, Abourizk S M, Kim H, Zaïane O (2008). Assessing residual value of heavy construction equipment using predictive data mining model. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 22(3): 181–191
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2008)22:3(181)
10 UCSUSA (2015). “California's Clean Construction Regulation”.
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Hakob AVETISYAN, Miroslaw SKIBNIEWSKI. Web-based construction equipment fleet management system: cost-effective global and local allocation[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(1): 76-83.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed