Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
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 Author(s): 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:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2017013
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2017/V4/I2/138
Engine Power Tier Year CO HC NMHC+ NO x NO x PM
kW<8 Tier 1 2000 8.0 (6.0) - 10.5 (7.8) - 1.0 (0.75)
(hp<11) Tier 2 2005 8.0 (6.0) - 7.5 (5.6) - 0.8 (0.6)
8≤kW<19 Tier 1 2000 6.6 (4.9) - 9.5 (7.1) - 0.8 (0.6)
(11≤hp<25) Tier 2 2005 6.6 (4.9) - 7.5 (5.6) - 0.8 (0.6)
19≤kW<37 Tier 1 1999 5.5 (4.1) - 9.5 (7.1) - 0.8 (0.6)
(25≤hp<50) Tier 2 2004 5.5 (4.1) - 7.5 (5.6) - 0.6 (0.45)
37≤kW<75 Tier 1 1998 - - - 9.2 (6.9) -
(50≤hp<100) Tier 2 2004 5.0 (3.7) - 7.5 (5.6) - 0.4 (0.3)
Tier 3 2008 5.0 (3.7) - 4.7 (3.5) - -†
75≤kW<130 Tier 1 1997 - - - 9.2 (6.9) -
(100≤hp<175) Tier 2 2003 5.0 (3.7) - 6.6 (4.9) - 0.3 (0.22)
Tier 3 2007 5.0 (3.7) - 4.0 (3.0) - -†
130≤kW<225 Tier 1 1996 11.4 (8.5) 1.3 (1.0) - 9.2 (6.9) 0.54 (0.4)
(175≤hp<300) Tier 2 2003 3.5 (2.6) - 6.6 (4.9) - 0.2 (0.15)
Tier 3 2006 3.5 (2.6) - 4.0 (3.0) - -†
225≤kW<450 Tier 1 1996 11.4 (8.5) 1.3 (1.0) - 9.2 (6.9) 0.54 (0.4)
(300≤hp<600) Tier 2 2001 3.5 (2.6) - 6.4 (4.8) - 0.2 (0.15)
Tier 3 2006 3.5 (2.6) - 4.0 (3.0) - -†
450≤kW<560 Tier 1 1996 11.4 (8.5) 1.3 (1.0) - 9.2 (6.9) 0.54 (0.4)
(600≤hp<750) Tier 2 2002 3.5 (2.6) - 6.4 (4.8) - 0.2 (0.15)
Tier 3 2006 3.5 (2.6) - 4.0 (3.0) - -†
kW≥560 Tier 1 2000 11.4 (8.5) 1.3 (1.0) - 9.2 (6.9) 0.54 (0.4)
(hp≥750) Tier 2 2006 3.5 (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 manufacture Age Horsepower A&HP SQRT of A&HP NSQRT of A&HP Sustainability Index
2015 1 750 750 27.39 0.18 0.82
2014 2 750 1500 38.73 0.26 0.74
2013 3 750 2250 47.43 0.32 0.68
2012 4 750 3000 54.77 0.37 0.63
2011 5 750 3750 61.24 0.41 0.59
2010 6 750 4500 67.08 0.45 0.55
2009 7 750 5250 72.46 0.48 0.52
2008 8 750 6000 77.46 0.52 0.48
2007 9 750 6750 82.16 0.55 0.45
2006 10 750 7500 86.60 0.58 0.42
2005 11 750 8250 90.83 0.61 0.39
2004 12 750 9000 94.87 0.63 0.37
2003 13 750 9750 98.74 0.66 0.34
2002 14 750 10,500 102.47 0.68 0.32
2001 15 750 11,250 106.07 0.71 0.29
2000 16 750 12,000 109.54 0.73 0.27
1999 17 750 12,750 112.92 0.75 0.25
1998 18 750 13,500 116.19 0.77 0.23
1997 19 750 14,250 119.37 0.80 0.20
1996 20 750 15,000 122.47 0.82 0.18
1995 21 750 15,750 125.50 0.84 0.16
1994 22 750 16,500 128.45 0.86 0.14
1993 23 750 17,250 131.34 0.88 0.12
1992 24 750 18,000 134.16 0.89 0.11
1991 25 750 18,750 136.93 0.91 0.09
1990 26 750 19,500 139.64 0.93 0.07
1989 27 750 20,250 142.30 0.95 0.05
1988 28 750 21,000 144.91 0.97 0.03
1987 29 750 21,750 147.48 0.98 0.02
1986 30 750 22,500 150.00 1.00 0.00
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)
c x y j k = Cost of operating (or renting, leasing as well as owning) each type of considered equipment y Î Y in Tier x Î X, at site jk, Î J, k Î K
c m x y j k = Cost of moving each type of considered equipment y Î Y in Tier x Î X, from site j site k, j Î J, k Î K
g x y j k = GHG emissions rate for equipment type y Î Y, in Tier x Î X, at site jk, j Î J, k Î K, expressed in CO2e
wjkt = Number of working days at site jk, j Î J, k Î K, in any period t Î S
βjkt = Discounting factor for inflation at site jk, j Î J, k Î K, by period t Î S
  
α x y j k t = Number of equipment pieces of type y, y Î Y, belonging to Tier level x, x Î X, at site jk, j Î J, k Î K, to be utilized during period t Î S
  
Activity type Unit Quantity Estimated budget ($) Scheduled duration (days)
Excavation CY 17,955 19,335 10
Earthmoving CY 10,368 18,884 6
Tab.3  Case study activity types and specifications
Activity type Unit Daily production rate of contractor
Excavation CY/Day 2000
Earthmoving CY/Day 2000
Tab.4  Production rates for case study activities
Equipment Technical spec. Daily capacity
Category Model ID ID# Engine power (gross HP) Unit Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Articulated hauler Volvo A35D ArtA35D 1 393 CY/Day 624 624 624 624
Articulated hauler CAT T730 ArtT730 2 375 CY/Day 528 528 528 528
Dozer John Deere 550J Doz550J 3 85 CY/Day 436 436 436 436
Dozer John Deere 750J Doz750J 4 145 CY/Day 761 761 761 761
Tab.5  Case study available equipment
Activity type Allowed equipment
Excavation John Deere 550J Doz550J
John Deere 750J Doz750J
Earthmoving Volvo A35D ArtA35D
CAT T730 ArtT730
Tab.6  Allowed equipment for each activity in case study
Equipment type Cost
Category Model ID ID# Unit Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Articulated hauler Volvo A35D ArtA35D 1 $/Day 617 653 726 871
Articulated hauler CAT T730 ArtT730 2 $/Day 527 558 620 744
Dozer John Deere 550J Doz550J 3 $/Day 399 422 469 563
Dozer John Deere 750J Doz750J 4 $/Day 304 322 358 430
Tab.7  Daily costs of each equipment in case study
Equipment type Sustainability Index
Category Model ID ID# Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Articulated hauler Volvo A35D ArtA35D 1 0.70 0.77 0.84 0.88
Articulated hauler CAT T730 ArtT730 2 0.72 0.79 0.86 0.90
Dozer John Deere 550J Doz550J 3 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.81
Dozer John Deere 750J Doz750J 4 0.70 0.77 0.84 0.88
Tab.8  Sustainability Index of each equipment in the case study
Equipment type Proposed number
Category Model ID ID# Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Articulated hauler Volvo A35D ArtA35D 1 0 1 1 0
Articulated hauler CAT T730 ArtT730 2 0 0 1 0
Dozer John Deere 550J Doz550J 3 0 0 0 0
Dozer John Deere 750J Doz750J 4 0 0 2 1
Tab.9  Optimization Model results for the case study
1 ARB (2007). “OFFROAD model”. Off-Road Emissions Inventory. California Environmental Protection Agency.
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.
3 (2010b). “Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program”. California Environmental Protection Agency.
4 H Avetisyan, E Miller-Hooks, S Melanta (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 H Avetisyan, M Skibniewski (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 H Fan, S M Abourizk, H Kim, O Zaïane (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”.
[1] Sarah M. L. HUBBARD, Bryan HUBBARD. A review of sustainability metrics for the construction and operation of airport and roadway infrastructure[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(3): 433-452.
[2] Ramya KUMANAYAKE, Hanbin LUO. Life cycle carbon emission assessment of a multi-purpose university building: A case study of Sri Lanka[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(3): 381-393.
[3] 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