Choice of Optimum Combination of Construction Machinery Using Modified Advanced Programmatic Risk Analysis and Management Model

Document Type : Article

Authors

1 Department of Civil E ngineering, University of Isfahan , Iran. 81746 - 73441

2 Department of Civil E ngineering, University of Isfahan Iran. 81746 - 73441

Abstract

Since the proper use of construction machinery in infrastructure projects is important, it is essential to employ an optimum selection of machinery in these projects. Advanced programmatic risk analysis and management model (APRAM) is one of recently developed methods that can be used for risk analysis and management purposes considering schedule, cost and quality, simultaneously. In this paper, first the APRAM method is introduced and then modified in order to consider environmental risks. This method can consider potential risks that might occur over the entire life cycle of the project, and can be employed as an efficient decision-support tool for construction managers selecting machinery for an infrastructure project where various alternatives might be technically feasible. A case study of three possible combinations of excavation machines is then discussed. All project risks related to cost, time, quality and environment are identified, considering the capital costs which should be spent on each combination. Finally, some graphs which are derived from the method are taken into account in order to decrease each combination’s risks and to optimize the selection of excavating machinery. The outcomes highlight the efficiency of the APRAM model for the optimal selection of machinery in construction projects.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References

1. Forbes, D., Smith, S., and Horner, M. \Tools for
selecting appropriate risk management techniques in
the built environment", Construction Management
and Economics, 26(11), pp. 1241-1250 (2008).
2. Tran, D.Q. and Molenaar, K.R. \Risk-based project
delivery selection model for highway design and construction",
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 141(12), pp. 1-9 (2015).
3. Moret, Y. and Einstein, H.H. \Construction cost and
duration uncertainty model: Application to high-speed
rail line project", Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 142(10), pp. 1-3 (2016).
4. Imbeah, W. and Guikema, S. \Managing construction
projects using the advanced programmatic risk analysis
and management model", Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 135(8), pp. 772-781
(2009).
5. Dillon, R.L., Pate-Cornell, M.E., and Guikema, S.D.
\Programmatic risk analysis for critical engineering
systems under tight resource constraints" Operations
Research, 51(3), pp. 354-370 (2003).
6. Dillon, R.L. and Pate-Cornell, M.E. \APRAM: An advanced
programmatic risk analysis method", International
Journal of Technology, Policy and Management,
1(1), pp. 47-65 (2001).
7. Zeynalian, M., Trigunarsyah, B., and Ronagh, H.
\Modi cation of advanced programmatic risk analysis
and management model for the whole project life
cycle's risks", Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 139(1), pp. 51-59 (2012).
8. Rydeen, F. \Managing costs", American School and
University, 78(7), p. 58 (2006).
9. Mulholland, B. and Christian, J. \Risk assessment in
construction schedules," Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 125(1), pp. 8-15 (1999).
10. Oztas, A. and Okmen, O. \Judgmental risk analysis
process development in construction projects", Building
and Environment, 40(9), pp. 1244-1254 (2005).
11. Trejo, D. and Reinschmidt, k. \Justifying materials
selection for reinforced concrete structures: Part I -
Sensitivity analysis", Journal of Bridge Engineering,
12(1), pp. 31-37 (2005).
12. Dillon, R.L. \Programmatic risk analysis: Engineering
and management risk tradeo s for interdependent
projects", PhD Thesis, Stanford University (1999).
13. El-Reedy, M.A., Construction Management for Industrial
Projects, Scrivener Publishing, Salem, Massachusetts
(2011).
14. Pate-Cornell, M.E. \Fault trees vs. event trees in
reliability analysis", Risk Analysis, 4(3), pp. 177-186
(1984).
15. Guikema, S.D. and Pate-Cornell, M.E. \Component
choice for managing risk in engineered systems with
generalized risk/cost functions", Reliability Engineering
& System Safety, 78(3), pp. 227-238 (2002).
16. Kumar, P., Gurjar, B., Nagpure, A., and Harrison,
R.M. \Preliminary estimates of nanoparticle number
emissions from road vehicles in megacity Delhi and
associated health impacts", Environmental Science &
Technology, 45(13), pp. 5514-5521 (2011).
17. Petersen, H., Cris Lewis, W., and Jain, K. , Managerial
Economics, Pearson Education (2006).
Scientia Iranica
Volume 25, Issue 3
Transactions on Civil Engineering (A)
May and June 2018
Pages 1015-1024

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics