Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Graduate School
___The
__
INFLUENCE FACTORS
UA
Thesis in
Civil Engineering
by
James D. Shumway IV
-.
--
~.,,-'
Master of Science
92-14844
92-14844May
"Y
1992
D
,
"1W
-.
t;
I
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
Department of Civil Engineering
I
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE FORMWORK
PRODUCTIVITY INFLUENCE FACTORS
A Thesis in
Civil Engineering
by
James D. Shumway IV
I
I
I
92-14780
Master of Science
May 1992
lll IIIII
I III Il1
IlIIF
IJ4es-D.
Shumway
LV
I
I
1/
II
I
Statement A per telecon
Capt Jim Creighton TAPC/OPB -D
Alexandria, VA 22332-0411
INW
6/11/92
;..
lCior
Date of Signature
Gary R. Smith
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
Thesis Advisor
I
H. Randolph Thomas
Professor of Civil Engineering
i
Francois Grobler
Assistant Professor of
Architectural Engineering
I
I
I
2e,1192.
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.................... ..
vi
....................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......
................... .. viii
Chapter 1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
...............
Background ........
..................
Problem Statement .......
..............
Objectives and Scope ......
............
Methodology .........
.................
Organization of the Thesis ....
.........
Glossary of Terms .......
..............
1
3
4
4
6
6
Chapter 2.
INTRODUCTION ........
vii
............
2.1
2.2
2.3
Background .........
..................
Productivity Influence Factor ....
........
Learning Curve and Repetition ....
........
2.4
2.5
Management Factors
2.6
2.7
2.8
...
..
13
14
.....
.
8
9
10
10
11
..
...........
Chapter 3.
.............
14
16
18
18
19
19
21
21
21
22
23
24
26
27
. . .
29
3.1
3.2
3.3
29
31
34
3.4
Project #1:
34
3.5
Project #2:
Composting Facility
......
..
38
3.6
Project #3:
. . .
38
3.7
3.8
3.9
Project #4:
Parking Deck ..
.......... ..
Data Collection Difficulties. . . . . . . . .
Data Collection Manual Difficulties
.....
41
43
44
3.10
46
Chapter 4.
. . .
........... .
47
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
48
55
57
59
63
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.4
4.6.5
4.6.6
4.6.7
4.6.8
65
66
66
67
67
68
68
68
4.7
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
..........
.......
Chapter 6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
Chapter 5.
. . .
47
69
70
70
72
73
74
76
. .
78
Summary .......
................... ..
Findings .......
...................
..
Recommendations for Future Research .....
78
81
84
REFERENCES ........
......................
85
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
..........
..............
87
90
99
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
............
17
.............. .
20
3.
25
4.
. .
36
5.
. . .
37
6.
7.
8.
9.
49
10.
50
11.
12.
13.
...
1.
2.
..
....... ..
39
......... ..
40
..........
42
..... .
52
....... ..
53
. . .
54
vii
LIST OF TABLES
1.
15
2.
...... ..
28
3.
.......... ..
33
4.
...........
35
5.
60
6.
64
7.
77
.....
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
He and
results and joint research with Mr. Qabbani and Dr. Touran.
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
However, inadequate
Background
Productivity improvement techniques are based on
2
measure improvement program effectiveness (Business
Roundtable 1985, p.1).
This
This
While a
Some studies
Estimating manuals
However,
Problem Statement
Data collection procedures should support factor
Consolidation of such
4
1.3
Methodology
The objectives of this thesis were accomplished with a
Ilibraries
5
Richardson Engineering Services 1989); research reports
(Qabbani 1987); and literature provided by manufacturers of
forms (Economy Forms 1975 and Symons Corporation 1986).
Productivity data reported by the various sources often
used different definitions of productivity or efficiency.
Data from these references were converted to workhours per
100 SFCA.
The
PIF was defined as the impacted rate divided by the nonimpacted rate.
I
I
1
1.5
collection method.
I
I
1.6
Glossary of Terms
Blockout -
Disruptions
I
I
Gangforms
joined together.
17
-
LearninQ Curve
A conversion factor
I
1
I
I
I
I
8
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Background
Thomas and Smith's Loss of Construction Labor
presented
The report
Many of these
Overtime,
2.2
Others used
The
To obtain a consistent
10
2.3
Complicated
This
calculated as 0.80.
2.4
Ii1
After a disruption
Management Factors
To create an environment for optimum productivity,
12
sequencing activities, effectively organizing the site and
limiting work content changes.
Poor
Adrian's
13
2.6
He
Touran
14
raised concerns about the lack of adequate impact data
resulting from formwork complexity.
To develop difficulty
While the
2.7.1
Form Type
Common materials for formwork include steel, plywood,
and aluminum.
15
Table 1.
Factor
Source
Estimated Productivity
Influence Factor (PIF)
Repetition
Qabbani (1987)
PIF = 0.80
Disruptions
External
Labor
Strike
Frantazolas
(1984)
PIF = 1.72
Severe
Weather
Bennett (1990)
Thomas/Smith (1990)
PIF = 2.0
Accidents
Bennett (1990)
PIF = 2.0
Disruptions
Internal
Improper
Sequencing
Bennett (1990)
PIF = 4.0
Material
Bennett (1990)
Supply/Delivery
PIF = 4.0
Poor
Contractor
Coordination
Bennett (1990)
PIF = 2-4
Poor Material
Handling
Thomas/Smith
(1990)
PIF = 1.20
Effective
Coordination
Burkhart (1989)
Proctor (1989)
PIF = 0.80
Overtime
Adrian (1988)
PIF = 1.06
Rework
Sanders (1988)
[Masonry only]
PIF = 2.44
Site Management
1.67
NOTE:
Impacted productivity rate = productivity improvement
factor [PIF] x Base Rate
16
advantages of assembly ease and higher reuse.
Adrian (1989,
For
Panel Size
Panel sizes are selected based on system availability,
17
MA DD
PANELS
SPACING
FILLERS
6~
END
WOT~
60
1
I
6'
12'
I
IRWDD
TO 24'
6'
18
available form systems, crew characteristics, and placement
method will also influence size selection.
No source
Form Height
Wall or column height, slab or beam intersections, and
Icolumn benches.
When wall heights exceed 8', form design requires
additional bracing and crews often work from scaffolding
which may also be attached to the formwork.
The extra
19
1989, pg. 151, and Richardson 1989, pg. 3-10-15).
For steel
A recent formwork
If substantial reconfiguration of
20
aC
00
3H
cc
&
o..
..
00
:.
>
CO,
II
21
2.7.7
Bracing
For gang forming, installing and removing pipe braces
Connections
The
For hand-
set forming, the rate might reach 50%, since each individual
panel must be connected.
22
for approximately 10% of form erection time (EFCO Rate
Sheets 1975).
Bulkheads
23
formwork.
1.48].
Penetrations occur
However, a large
24
overall PIF would be 1.5 [1 [base rate] + 0.25 [25 SFCA/100
SFCA] x 2 = 1.5].
suggests a
Using Richardson's
If
25
-cc
00
(Da
CC)
04-
CC>
0)
4L
00
0~
0
C
m
0
0
0a.
00
4)C
Waa
2
E
a)
x
c
C
.
4-0
~
m (0
00
1.O.
04)0
C~~
(a
4-0
CU.
co~0
26
Vertical corners may result from footing elevation
changes, outer elevated curbs, or intersections with slabs.
No PIF values were found in the literature for vertical
corners or elevation changes.
2.7.13
For example,
the PIF for a 24' long pilaster would be 1.2 [24 x 0.05).
If this pilaster were constructed on a day when 500 SFCA of
forms were erected, the overall PIF would be 1.24 [1 + 1.2/
[500/100]].
27
These PIFs are based on a single form use, and lower
factors may be used for 2 or more uses.
to account for the occupied area versus daily output and the
complexity and dimensions of the particular bulkhead or
boxout.
To improve
They must
28
Table 2.
Factor
Source
Material
Adrian (1989)
Steel-plywood
Aluminum
Plywood
Shape
Straight
Richardson (1989)
and Means (1986)
Interior/Ext.
Placement
Method
Modular
Ganged
Job-built
Base Rate
PIF = 1.5
Richardson (1989),
Peurifoy (1989),
and Means (1986)
16' to 24'
Location
Base Rate
PIF = 0.73
PIF = 0.93
Curved
Height
to 8' high
8' to 16'
Estimated Productivity
Influence Factor (PIF)
2.0
Base Rate
PIF = 1.15
PIF = 1.30
1.26
1.43
Richardson (1989),
Means (1986), and
Adrian (1975/1989)
PIF = 1.4
Base Rate
Bennett (1990)
PIF = 0.79
PIF = 2.33
0.90
Means (1986)
PIF = 0.85
0.90
Modular form
Reuse
Qabbani/Richardson
(Multiply by area]
Boxouts
Richardson (1989)
[Multiply by occupied area]
Corners
[Length]
PIF = 1 to 4.5
Net PIF = 1.1 - 2
Design Details
Pilasters
Richardson (1989)
Qabbani (1987)
[Length]
Haunches
Corbels
Ledges
[Area]
Richardson (1989)
29
Chapter 3
PROJECT DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
provided in Appendix A.
3.1
The bulk
These factors
30
included: form type, panel size, formwork height, placement
method, corners due to footing elevation changes, interior/
exterior form corners, connections, bulkheads, boxouts,
pipesleeves, pilasters, corbels, ledges, and bearing seats.
Daily workhours were reported by the foreman and
verified by the project manager or superintendent.
Some
They
Actual
The
[3 x 6').
can be performed.
31
The current data collection system incorporates some of
the system factors mentioned previously and several others.
These include:
Effort
The quantities
These included:
Rules of Credit
Rules ol credit recognize the contribution of partially
1
1
Rules
32
type of work.
Two projects
However, modular
reconfigured frequently.
33
Table 3.
For Walls:
Modular form
Weiaht
Subtask
Description
Erect first
side of wall
0.60
Erect opposite
side
0.40
Brace wall
0.20
Align forms
0.20
Strip forms
0.10
Desription
Erect first
three sides
0.75
Erect fourth
side
0.35
Brace and
final alignment
0.30
Strip forms
0.05
Source:
Weight
34
3.3
The
A subcontractor installed
It was built
Various size
35
Table 4.
#1
Tertiary
Filter
Levels
PROJECTS
#2
#3
Compost
Art
Facility
Museum
#4
Parking
Deck
11.5 - 19.5
7.5
4.5 - 17.7
6.5
10 - 16
8 - 24
20,350
30,000+
11,330
36,800
18,600
23,430
Vertical
SFCA
46,200
13,400
12,800
Wall
Height (ft)
26
Wall Thickness
(inches)
18,768
Number of:
Bulkheads
Corners
Elev. Changes
Blockouts
Boxouts
Penetrations
10
41
4
95
0
0
10
44
6
15
30
3
45
**
12
26
0
0
6
6
Method
Ganged
% Ganged (Avg.)
44%
Type
Steel/SPF
Ownership
Owned
Contractor
Type
Crew Size (Avg.)
Workdays
Observed
Cumulative
Productivity
(WH/100 SFCA)
Hand-set
0
SPF
Leased
General
Non-Union
8
68
General
Non-Union
15
16
0
0
Hand-set
0
SPF
Leased
Ganged
30%
Steel
Owned
Specialty
Non-union
4
General
Non-union
12
23
43
5.5
6.4
40
20 (1st Level)
15 (2nd Level)
14.9
36
C3
0 C3
C3
>
Li
o i
LJ
<
Li
Mu
(4
Z4
4-
-j
Li
4-
z
CL
L.
C,,
~LL
P.-
>
00
-j-
>1
L.L
I-
-J
LLJ
37
*
IJ
<
>
0
-j
LL
fuI
LiI
m .LJ V)
zj
rcJ.l
L-
00
a)
<
C3 j
-J
I-
L&
.L -j
(1(U
J \t
Li
Li
L~
0:
a)
11
4-.>
F-
Li
CL
-Z
dLJ
4-<
L.
____
__
____
____
__
CUz
38
3.5
Each 7'6" high wall was 208 feet long and they were
erected in three groups of five.
April and finished in mid-May.
They placed
39
-J
Li
0 0
U.J
>-
X:
L~a
Ix
LiJX
UH
ZD
zz
0
EE
-J
40
>
r~
NI
Z,
cu
Li0
4
J<0
44
LJ
I.v
<L..
I>
Li
C-a~jC
-L
C
cc
La
LIL
EL
Ljz
Lai
44
0
La
Li
Lj
Go
LLL
L).
La)
LIJ
z
F0
Li~
LAJ-0
Li
0:
41
corners and adjoining columns.
existing buildings.
The
The forms
The
Rain,
42
Cu
KFT
z
I
0=0
-jow
Cu
0 w
I\\
u a
mXF
U,
Li
I;
FL:
U-
C.
')
L.J-
V\
oo Z
C
L.O
x
L.x
-JI
Li
I-CU
-Se
mo
Li ZO
cu
<
43
3.8
However,
the art museum and parking deck project managers were very
helpful and willing to spend as much time as necessary.
They provided useful project level information.
Because of the difficulties encountered, data were
limited to workhours devoted to formwork activities,
quantities, construction drawings, and observable effects.
Workhours were separated out for constructing footings,
erecting reinforcing steel, pouring concrete, finishing
concrete surfaces, and performing detailed form maintenance.
However, it was often difficult to distinguish minor form
maintenance and supporting work from formwork erection or
stripping.
Another problem encountered in data collection was
collecting data from several projects concurrently.
Output
44
sites were visited the following morning, before work began.
Collecting and analyzing the necessary data was very
time consuming.
The modular
The PDCM
These
45
When a crew
This was
Hours spent
However,
46
formwork at the art museum and parking deck were tracked
along with the walls.
and the other sides were part of the interior wall forms.
Daily collection of temperature and relative humidity
data as of 1 p.m. seems irrelevant for the studied projects.
They had little or no impact on productivity on any observed
activity.
[PDCM]
1991) provides a
Organizing and
47
Chapter 4
PROJECT DATA ANALYSIS
This
Cumulative
They may
48
4.2
the levels, while different form sizes and types were used.
Productivity for the first level, shown in Figure 8,
became worse as the job progressed.
Decreased site
accessibility and increased complexity of the interior Lshaped wall contributed to this trend.
incrementally.
Factors which
49
____
00
E'
40
4)
.0
~0
M
I.-.
00
U-
CCD
T
.7
0)O
A0
)A![oP~
50
6-(
(U
Oh.
'0
LLC
z0
o0
L.
-I
00
0~
0
ca
S0
.4-
02
L~CL
*0
o~0
-j-
C\I
r>9
0
OD)
(dSOOL/HM) A!l3P~
51
The composting facility, displayed in Figure 10, was
the easiest project to analyze.
Form
After
These
52
0))
%
-
I~
20
00
0
a.
'a
CI
U)
0~
CLu
E=).10
0
CY
Goc
CI)=
I!loP
EO/M
53
<
0-
LL.
o
I
CO
0
0
-cc
4)
4-
C.0
a
(D
-0
0
0-
CL 00
_a
0)
__A
(D e----.I
a)
4cc
0
_
00
ar
O)'
EC,
4a)
~o
CD
Cvcr
U)
cmJ
cli
to
LO
LL
54
~~0
__
00
a-.
0L
(D
0D
0
(D
- -)
COX ~~r
J
4
>
00
00
C-
00 U_
~%W
7.
i..
>O
LX
>
0
C
o-1a
0X
~0
C3.
C6i
.S
0.
<OLHL
0
0
00000
ODN
to
(vAfS OLH
00
c
)AI!AijonPOJd
CYJ
55
walls included integral columns, corbels for beam seats, and
were angled.
a variety of activities.
For example, a
Estimating their
The
56
regression analysis.
The analysis of variance technique was used to
determine the effect of conditions like rain, wall height
categories, or rework on the dependent variable,
productivity.
This
Each data
57
workhours expended would have little effect on cumulative
productivity, but a huge impact on the mean rate calculated
by ANOVA for an analysis category, such as weather.
Due to
This
and analyzed.
for one day, for both the art museum and tertiary filter
building second level projects.
Richardson (1989,
58
pg. 3-10-2) allocates 16 workhours/200 SFCA for gang form
fabrication.
The current
and 1/3 of the bracing credit are given the day the form is
fabricated, the average resulting credit for both wall sides
is 57% of the allocated erection and bracing time.
This
These
59
small wall sections, columns or other miscellaneous work.
Productivity for these piecework sections was usually worse
than normal production days.
Piecework
shown in Table 5.
In
60
Table 5.
Weather
1.49
(Spike >33)
1.44
Rework
Sequencing
& Layout
Average
1.29
1.41
2.24
2.24
1.77
1.96
1.07
1.07
0.87
0.87
(Spike >33)
2.14
Overtime
Repetition
0.87
Piecework
1.32
Cleanup/Support
Parking
Deck
1.29
1.32
1.52
1.43
1.41
Composting
Facility
Weather
1.54
Repetition
(Spike >33)
1.52
0.83
Piecework
Cleanup/Support
Art
Museum
1.37
1.53
0.83
1.85
1.85
2.03
1.63
61
than average productivity on two days with intermittent
heavy rain.
The
The
62
required rebar to be cut or bent.
In addition to
63
productivity improvements through repetition of 0.83 to
0.87.
Table 6
The relative
64
Table 6.
Factor
Parking
1st Level
2nd Level
Deck
Average
1.34
1.53
1.37
1.41
0.78
0.91
0.85
Overall Effect
Gang Forming
Wall Height [Compared to the base rate for walls < 8' high]
8'-16'
unable to
1.95
1.95
>16'
determine
2.28
2.28
Multiple Factors
1.55
1.62
1.59
1.59
Corners
1.02
1.05
1.36
1.14
Bulkheads
1.10
1.18
1.54
1.27
Boxouts
Penetrations
Large (42")
Medium
1.80
1.24
1.52
1.99
1.26
1.57
1.36
1.78
1.31
Blockouts
Corbels
Pilasters
Factor
Overall Effect
1.31
1.33
1.17
Composting
Art
Facility
Museum
1.27
1.90
1.31
1.33
1.17
Average
1.55
Wall Height [Compared to the base rate for walls < 8' high]
8'-16'
1.04
1.04
> 16'
1.75
1.75
Form Size [smaller]
1.09
1.09
Multiple Factors
2.75
2.75
Corners
Elevation Changes
1.58
1.65
1.58
1.65
1.71
1.38
Boxouts
1.91
1.91
Column and
Beam Seats
1.68
1.68
Bulkheads
1.04
65
formwork components affect their associated PIF.
For
Multiple regression
Gang Forming
The tertiary filter building and parking deck project
After
0.78 was more impressive than the parking deck PIF of 0.91.
The parking deck contractor encountered problems using gang
forms for the sloping walls and varied wall heights, with
changing corbel form inserts, and around adjoining columns.
66
4.6.2
Wall Height
Walls were separated into three height categories for
analysis.
The base rate was the mean value for walls under
8' high.
16' high.
However,
The
67
pipesleeve and watertight door.
The plywood
[PIF = 1.02-1.05].
The art
Bulkhead Placement
Bulkhead productivity influence factors range from 1.04
The
68
4.6.6
museum.
The 42"
Pilaster
The resulting multiple impact PIFs were very similar for the
two gang formed projects [1.55-1.62].
museum showed a drastic PIF of 2.75.
69
4.7
summary information.
70
Chapter 5
COMPARATIVE FACTOR ANALYSIS
The
71
just prior to beginning the first level, and the crew was
inexperienced.
The
72
[4.33 wh/100 SFCA] was about 5% lower than the average
composting facility undisrupted rate [4.57 wh/100 SFCAJ.
This small difference is not significant.
The composting facility was the simplest project to
manage in terms of work content, and information flow was
good.
This
optimistic.
data from company records (EFCO Rate Sheets 1975) and from
outside researchers (Adrian 1975b).
73
modular forming systems ranged from 2 to 4 workhours per 100
SFCA.
SFCA.
Modular
form base rates ranged from 7-9 WH/100 SFCA (Richardson 1989
and Means 1986).
In addition to the
Other
This rate
The
74
Yiakoumis (1986) found an undisrupted rate of 16 workhours
per 100 SFCA which was closer to those observed in this
study.
However,
Adrian (1975b, pg. 43) and the EFCO Rate Sheets (1975)
calculated a value for stripping [cleanup/support] which
compared to the credit applied in this study works out to a
PIF of 1.4.
75
the art museum.
The
The
For example, if a
[140 SF] were built when 200 SFCA of wall were erected, the
boxout impacted area would be 70% of the daily output.
To illustrate the effect, several comparative analyses
were done for this thesis.
The
76
and project data analysis were much closer when converted to
represent their relative contribution to total output.
5.5
compared in Table 7.
Local
Project rework,
gang forming, and repetition PIF values were all within 10%
of the values provided by literature.
The influence of
Once
77
Table 7.
Item
Industry
Sources
Other
Sources
Project
Average
Overall
Average
Base Rate
(WH/100 SFCA)
2-8
[Range]
16-46
[Range]
4-16
[Range]
2-46
[Range]
PIFs
General:
Weather
Rework
Overtime
2.0
2.44
1.06+
1.52
2.24
1.07
1.76
2.34
1.07+
1.96
Layout
----
2-4
Piecework
Cleanup
----
1.4
----
1.6
**
**
1.6
1.53
1.5
1.56
----
----
1.46
1.46
Gang Forming
Wall Height
0.85
0.79
0.85
0.83
1.21
1.37
-------
1.50
2.02
1.36
1.70
----
----
1.09
1.09
----
----
1.29
1.29
8'-16'
Over 16'
Form Size
(< 2' x 8')
Form Type
(Steel)
----
----
1.3
----
1.88
1.31
1.88
1.31
Corners
1.5
5.0
1.25
1.37
Elev. Changes
Boxouts
----
----
1.5
----
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.58
1.5
1.5
----
1.78
1.31
1.64
1.40
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
----
1.31
1.17
1.33
1.68
1.40
1.33
1.41
1.59
Penetrations
Large
Medium
----
Blockouts
Ledges
Pilasters
Corbels
Benches
----------
78
Chapter 6
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
To effectively exchange information on formwork crew
79
productivity rate to determine the influence of rain,
rework, and other effects.
Gang forming, effective coordination, proper material
management, and repetitive components may improve
productivity.
Factors like
These
The
Obtaining detailed
80
Data from the four projects were analyzed to determine
productivity rates and corresponding productivity influence
factors in Chapter 4.
Values were
System related
For
Isolating
81
6.2
Findings
Previous literature identified a number of critical
To present
A PIF higher
For example,
The impact
82
greatest variance in comparing general factors, but was not
unusual considering the variable nature of weather events.
Wall height PIFs observed on projects were highly
variable, but other system factors interfered with the
analysis.
However,
This
Therefore, the
83
disruptions as well.
These days
These were
Output quantities
84
6.3
85
REFERENCES
1975.
86
Peurifoy, R.L., and Oberlender, G.D. Estimating
Construction Costs. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Proctor, J.R. "Coordinating Formwork Plans with Overall
Project Planning," Concrete Construction, November 1989,
pp 927-931.
Qabbani, Z.S.
"Formwork: Economy and Productivity
Analysis." Master of Science engineering report,
University of Colorado -- Boulder, 1987.
Des
I
87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
Appendix A
DATA COLLECTION FORMS
1
I
Iwall
I
88
UNIVERSITY JOINT AUTHORITY
2ND LEVEL FORMWORK
9S
4N
Strip
Pipealeeve
1 Boxout
'
Wall 48
Set lot Side.*________
Wall 9E
wall 7
WallI4N
Strip
Wall
4 Inset Formsl
Align/lPour
Workday:
Rain: T-Storms
30
Temperature:
Length (hours):
9.j.
80 Comment: 1 Hour
1Strip:
Panel Type:
Disruptions: Weather/Pinesleeve
Mod.
0/0
89
Table A.1
Form No.
Title [Frequencyl
Manpower/
Labor Pool
[Daily)
Quantity
Measurement
[Daily for
each prod./
type code]
Design Features
& Work Content
[Daily]
Environmental/
Site Conditions
[Daily]
Management
Practices/
Control
[Daily]
Construction
Methods
[Daily]
Project
Organization
[Daily]
Project
Features
[Once]
Daily Diary
[Daily]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
90
Appendix B
PROJECT DATA
91
Table B.1 1st Level Tertiary Filter Bldg Productivity Data
Work Work
Day Hours
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Quantities
Productivity
Erect Erect
Daily Cum.
Sidel Side2 Brace Align Strip Credit Rate Rate
55.3
58.5
58.5
35.8
45.5
49.5
49.5
49.5
35.8
44
49.5
49.5
49.5
41.3
31.5
40.5
33
49.5
55.3
35.8
58.5
58.5
24.8
24.8
11.3
395
292
155
192
297
92
368
253
144
144
138
109
14
50
242
289
160
276
92
265
103
247
161
234
207
204
77
Work Type
Cleanup/Support
Disruption
234
445
534
289
160
155
192
297
368
92
368
253
144
306
206
138
356
00
315
221
204
77
234
138
736
138
598
736
736
494
402
736
230
454
620
5, 24, 25
Impacted Workdays
8, 21
Layout/Sequencing
12
414
1304
414
16.0
15.4
16.6
17.7
18.0
32.2
19.7
20.7
17.7
14.3
18.9
43.0
19.5
18.0
17.1
17.2
18.4
25.2
19.6
29.2
39.3
25.3
20.0
19.0
27.2
16.0
15.7
16.0
16.3
16.5
18.0
18.2
18.5
18.4
17.9
18.0
19.0
19.0
18.9
18.8
18.7
18.7
19.0
19.1
19.3
19.9
20.2
20.2
20.1
20.2
Remarks
Strip/move components.
Remarks
Thunderstorms, moderate
Watertight door.
System Effect
Impacted Workdays
Remarks
Corners
Bulkheads
1290
Impacted Workdays
Weather (Rain)
900
528
346
379
353
202
253
154
251
239
202
30
262
115
254
230
184
235
179
197
283
122
149
231
124
130
41
Difficult Penetration
or Boxout
Pipesleeves
7, 11,
6
20
17, 18,
19, 20, 22
Ii
42" pipesleeve.
Watertight door.
18-42" pipesleeves, Lshaped wall & northwall
m mmm n m mm I
I92
Table B.2
Productivity
Quantities **
Work Work
Day Hours
Daily
Erect Erect
Sidel Side2 Brace Align Strip Credit Rate
1
2
3
33.5
46
8
240
432
40
392
5
6
20
7
50
125
547
169
369
0
19.8
12.5
19.8
14.8
16.3
359
307
13.0
15.1
194
113
46
11
0
i19
257
401
216
530
17.7
15.2
15.4
15.4
18.0
15.4
34.0
21.0
14.5
15.3
12.8
17.9
19.6
19.8
18.6
18.3
17.1
RAINOUT
11
Cum.
Rate
231
8
9
10
11
12
13
25
40.5
54
58
33
67.5
PIPESLEEVE LAYOUT
103
126
80
421
432
822
423
349
1079
440
660
14
67.5
293
80
553
193
338
20.0
17.5
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
59.5
60
61
94.5
94.5
94.5
84
51
76.5
33
264
603
40
580
795
356
40
182
510
248
545
738
651
490
218
592
359
1018
220
438
381
685
473
524
550
395
600
27.1
13.7
16.0
13.8
20.0
18.0
15.3
12.9
12.8
18.2
17.6
17.4
16.9
17.2
17.3
17.1
16.8
16.5
24
76.5
464
186
800
413
554
13.8
16.3
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
65.5
9
76.5
58.5
76.5
76.5
68
76.5
16.5
33
663
561
372
1073
372
218
352
353
352
770
578
336
803
1255
1249
579
37
409
461
878
339
346
760
74
11.3
24.2
18.7
12.7
8.7
22.6
19.6
10.1
22.2
16.0
16.0
16.1
15.9
15.3
15.6
15.7
15.3
15.4
34
30
35
36
37
38
39
48
37
48
32
21
1il
52
611
490
327
633
1057
105
81
390
316
186
502
556
186
537
22
576
316
537
22
475
1418
626
1280
598
372
1439
372
120
455
314
986
907
902
116
784
410
304
1036
164
18.3
15.4
372
768
975
500
425
322
266
108
9.6
8.7
14.9
12.0
19.5
15.2
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
1079
372
1079
93
Work Type
Fabricate/
Pregang Forms
Piecework
Cleanup/Support
7, 34, 39
Strip/move components.
3, 26, 33
30
Weather (Rain)
Layout/Sequencing
8
Impacted Workdays
System Effect
Major impact.
Lesser influence.
5-7
Impacted Workdays
Disruption
Remarks
Remarks
Stopped work early.
1 hour disruption.
Positioning of 3 pipesleeve penetrations.
Remarks
1-2, 4, 10-11,
13-14, 16, 18, 22,
25, 28-29, 31, 35-36
Corners
5, 8-9, 14-15, 31
Bulkheads
Large Pipesleeve
Boxouts
30-31
Pilasters
18-30" Pipesleeves,
interior walls.
1, 22-23, 32
5, 15
31, 34, 37
Rebar Templates
Pipesleeves
(Medium)
94
Table B.3
Work Work
Day Hours
1
2
3
4
5
6
07
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
96
96
72
11
il
96
88
150
150
150
130
142
138
138
150
150
150
81
84
78
68
78
16
2018
510
255
930
1185
690
1317
1440
1609
1264
1185
1635
1215
1504
1594
1756
632
945
752
1209
Work Type
1269
I
I
I
2310
2464
2478
Impacted Workdays
5, 18
Impacted Workdays
Bulkheads [Quantity]
(Identical Design]
Step Forms
2310
1155
1155
2310
2464
2310
2772
2464
4620
2310
2464
2464
2772
2464
23
Weather (Rain)
System Effect
1642
3286
Impacted Workdays
Cleanup/Support
Disruption
2400
2018
510
2280
930
1410
1815
3057
3000
3079
2494
2760
2310
2775
3064
3424
2956
632
2070
752
1209
1269
3, 6, 20, 22
2, 4-5, 8-18
2618
1155
1155
2310
2310
2310
2464
2310
2772
2464
2310
2310
2310
2464
2464
2772
2464
2310
2464
2478
1920
1539
963
2035
1136
1238
1776
2875
2836
2850
2528
2741
2691
2670
2874
3144
2814
1118
1744
1160
1691
1503
248
5.00
6.24
7.48
5.46
9.78
7.76
4.95
5.22
5.29
5.26
5.14
5.18
5.13
5.17
5.22
4.77
5.33
7.24
4.82
6.73
4.02
5.19
6.46
5.00
5.55
5.97
5.81
6.40
6.59
6.32
6.08
5.94
5.84
5.76
5.70
5.64
5.60
5.56
5.49
5.48
5.53
5.50
5.54
5.48
5.47
5.47
Remarks
Strip/move components.
Remarks
Thunderstorms, Moderate
Remarks
Worst Impacted Days.
Less Impacted Days.
Worst Impacted Days
[Continued].
Less Impacted Days.
95
Table B.4
Work Work
Day Hours
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
45
45
13.5
20
42.5
12.5
30
33.5
14
4
20
8
29
22.5
36
28
12
31
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
24
17
25
12
19.5
13.5
22
18
8
25
22
26
12
8
18
12
27.5
24
8
22
4
8
18
12
1
961
1418
304
92
1680
250
783
4.6
4.5
8.1
27.2
4.2
8.3
3.6
4.6
7.7
904
970
1010
166
74
1008
150
832
736
183
--366
127
451
337
474
362
119
528
927
258
9.3
282
132
220
158
273
238
103
332
308
309
167
61
298
193
470
291
108
687
30
97
279
193
9
8.9
9.1
8.9
8.6
8.1
7.6
7.8
7.5
7.1
8.4
7.2
13.0
6.0
6.2
5.9
8.3
7.4
3.2
13.4
8.3
6.5
6.2
11.5
1810
3678
1828
RAINOUT
3660
173
517
58
337
75
25
485
193
230
115
523
543
530
272
597
398
157
ERECT LARGE
529
83
189
132
400
854
597
255
160
147
127
130
233
74
356
BOXOUTS
353
259
233
189
533
789
235
280
515
382
290
512
380
74
614
275
296
126
130
140
297
119
405
140
593
245
366
371
737
593
245
737
52
203
162
12
117
38
42
277
130
42
277
130
235
280
88
851
704
515
512
614
545
545
593
245
298
439
281
87
5.5
6.3
6.4
6.7
7.6
7.7
10.1
5.9
4.6
4.6
4.8
5.6
5.1
5.3
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.8
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
96
Table B.4 (cont.) Art Museum Extension Productivity Data
Work Type
Impacted Workdays
Piecework
Cleanup/Support
9, 11,
Disruption
Impacted Workdays
Weather (Rain)
32, 39, 43
I0, 32, 39
36
System Effect
Impacted Workdays
Piers
Columns
6, 12-16, 22,
34-36, 38
Bulkheads
Corners
little scaffolding.
Work off scaffolding.
3-4, 6, 25,
33-36
Elevation Changes
4, 13-15, 25-26
Difficult Boxouts
4, 20
Penetrations
Other Boxouts
30
10, 19, 21-22,
26, 30
Column/Beam
3, 4, 6, 8, 16-17
Benches
23-24, 27, 31, 34, 36-38
Remarks
97
Table B.5
Work Work
Day Hours
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
35
15
14
9
31
14
33
30
14
50
50
80
65
40
91
60
40
24
60
80
90
70
15
48
24
60
65
76
16
40
80
90
50
42
10
8
100
95
75
16
Productivity
**
Erect Erect
Daily
Sidel Side2 Brace Align Strip Credit Rate
235
131
160
325
245
9
18
31
80
165
80
165
110
249
112
581
9
699
400
293
297
197
173
360
197
583
122
38
240
240
130
136
233
50
472
41
339
367
485
242
151
738
240
176
224
430
305
666
229
204
37
150
712
1024
400
150
345
348
194
336
336
120
606
759
314
1679
172
481
318
190
224
468
362
652
839
106
65
171
311
25
367
434
215
134
615
351
171
545
290
146
773
1028
348
145
435
135
567
567
715
612
353
353
727
196
827
522
568
549
467
180
414
130
764
811
693
835
658
186
1853
171
506
363
555
1267
881
1867
881
164
157
123
195
415
217
318
248
113
394
228
584
194
291
469
364
214
99
315
431
538
331
93
274
81
532
495
563
84
317
527
546
371
158
51
36
797
786
594
88
21.3
9.6
11.4
4.6
7.5
6.5
10.4
12.1
12.4
12.7
21.9
13.7
33.5
13.8
19.4
16.5
18.7
24.2
19.0
18.6
16.7
21.1
16.1
17.5
29.6
11.3
13.1
13.5
19.2
12.6
15.2
16.5
13.5
26.6
19.8
22.0
12.6
12.1
12.6
18.1
Cum.
Rate
21.3
15.6
14.4
11.4
9.9
9.3
9.5
9.9
10.0
10.5
11.5
11.9
13.1
13.2
13.9
14.1
14.3
14.5
14.8
15.1
15.2
15.5
15.6
15.6
15.8
15.5
15.3
15.2
15.2
15.1
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.4
15.2
15.0
1-4.9
14.9
98
Table B.5 (cont.) Parking Deck Productivity Data
Impacted Workdays
Work Type
1, 3, 5, 11
9, 10, others
Fabricate/
Pregang Forms
Cleanup/
Support
Impe.cted--Workdays
Disruption
Remarks
Major impact.
Lesser influence.
Strip/move components.
Erect scaffold/other.
Remarks
Layout/Sequencing
34
Rework
13
Weather (Rain)
General Factor
Impacted Workdays
12 - 29
Overtime
System Effect
Impacted Workdays
1, 3, 5, 7-16,
30-33, 36-40
17-29, 34-35
1, 3, 5, 7, 10-12,
Gang-forming
14-16, 20, 26-27, 31, 37
Piers
1-2, 24
Remarks
7 days/week, 10 hrs/day
Worked on high walls.
Remarks
Some scaffolding/most
Columns
Corners
Bulkheads
Blockouts
Corbels
B
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
99
Appendix C
PROJECT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INFORMATION
100
PIF
1.49
2.14
Siq. Level
0.0004
0.0611
1.34
1.29
16.20
25.15
16.46
17.87
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
1.55
1.02
1.10
1.99
1.26
1.80
0.0001
15.69 wh/1G0
Corners
Bulkheads
Pipesleeve
SFCA
0.0000
1.05
1.11
1.66
0.4695
0.0546
0.0002
101
Disruption
No Impact
Weather
Spike
Layout/Seq.
Spike
PIF
1.44
--
--
0.87
Sig. Level
0.0000
Repetition
No Impact
Repetitive
0.2687
Work Method
Handset
Gang Form
0.0364
0.78
0.0000
1.53
1.32
1.50
12.50
20.19
13.09
14.75
15.54
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
1.62
1.05
1.18
1.24
1.57
1.36
1.17
0.0001
12.28
12.49
15.60
17.00
14.52
13.08
14.68
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
1.02
1.27
1.38
1.18
1.07
1.20
0.0000
0.8143
0.0232
0.0000
0.0404
0.6805
0.0223
102
Composting Facility
Base or "Undisrupted" Productivity Rate
4.70 workhours/lO0 SFCA
From ANOVA:
IFrom
Multiple Regression:
Average:
Disruption
No Impact
IWeather
PIF
Sig. Level
0.0004
1.54
Repetition
No Impact
Repetitive
0.0006
0.83
No Impact
System
Impacts
Cleanup!
Support
0.1717
1.27
1.37
Constant
Bulkheads
Form Size
1.04
1.09
0.0000
0.1475
0.1201
Step Forms
Art Museum Extension
Base or "Undisrupted" Productivity Rate
From ANOVA:
From Multiple Regression:
Average:
Disruption
No Impact
Weather
Spike
ISystem
Spike
Rel.
PIF
1.52
>500
Sig. Level
0.0003
103
Wall Height
Base [<8']
8'-16'
Over 16'
0.240
1.04
1.75
0.0713
1.90
1.85
2.03
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
0.2631
2.75
1.58
1.65
1.71
1.91
1.68
Parking Deck
Base or "Undisrupted" Productivity Rate
From ANOVA:
From Multiple Regression:
Average:
Disruption
No Impact
Weather
Layout/Seq.
Rework
workhours/100 SFCA
9.74 workhours/100 SFCA
9.74 workhours/100 SFCA
PIF
15.00
19.31
26.58
33.54
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
1.29
1.77
2.24
0.87
0.91
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
Sig. Level
0.0001
Repetition
No Impact
Repetitive
0.0006
Work Method
Handset
Gang Form
0.4898
104
Overtime
8-16' High Walls
No Overtime 13.70 wh/100 SFCA
Overtime
14.64 wh/100 SFCA
0.0004
1.07
Wall Height
Base [<8']
8'-16'
Over 16'
1.95
2.44
0.0004
0.0001
1.29
9.74
13.38
15.44
13.26
14.98
12.74
12.91
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
0.0077
1.37
1.59
1.36
1.54
1.31
1.33
9.74
11.49
12.01
11.18
12.06
11.29
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
wh/100
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
1.18
1.23
1.15
1.24
1.16
0.0000
0.2295
0.0459
0.1311
0.5033
0.1992