Application of Low-Cost Accelerometers for Measuring the

Operational Efficiency of a Construction Equipment Fleet

Changbum R. Ahn, M.ASCE 1; SangHyun Lee, M.ASCE 2; and Feniosky Peña-Mora, M.ASCE 3

Abstract: Monitoring the operational efficiency of construction equipment offers great opportunities to enhance not only the productivity
but also the environmental performance of construction operations. However, existing enabling technologies still suffer from a lack of eco-
nomic feasibility, as well as technological compatibility with equipment fleets that are outdated or that consist of diverse manufacturers’
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

models. In this context, this paper examines the feasibility of measuring the operational efficiency of equipment using low-cost acceler-
ometers. Acceleration data in three axes were collected from a real-world operation of excavators that performed various duty cycles. Multiple
features were calculated from acceleration data, and several classifiers using these features were tested to classify equipment operation into
engine-off, idling, and working modes. An accuracy of over 93% was obtained in the classification of excavators’ operation. This result has
demonstrated that the application of low-cost accelerometers has the potential to provide a robust system to automatically measure the
operational efficiency of construction equipment without any connection to its legacy engine system. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-
5487.0000337. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Sustainable construction; Construction management; Resource tracking; Accelerometer; Operational efficiency;
Equipment idling.

Introduction (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), and black

Construction projects have suffered from low productivity due to a
variety of unexpected incidents, such as interruption and waiting,
that are caused by dynamic outdoor working environments (Sakcs
et al. 2010). As construction equipment is one of the main compo-
nents in a construction production system, the systematic measure-
ment and analysis of a construction equipment operation is
essential for productivity improvement (Gong and Caldas 2011).
Accurate data of the process measurement are necessary not only
to control current projects, but also to update historical databases
(Sardroud et al. 2010). Such updates allow for better planning of
future projects in terms of resource allocation, schedule, and cost.
In addition, the analysis of a construction equipment operation
is important in reducing the environmental impact generated from
a construction project, since the use of construction equipment
generates significant air pollutant emissions, including carbon
emissions (CO2 ) and diesel exhaust emissions (EPA 2008). In par-
ticular, diesel exhaust emissions generated from heavy-duty diesel
equipment—such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
1 times during which equipment is running but not engaged in any
Assistant Professor, Construction Engineering and Management
Division, Charles Durham School of Architectural Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, 113 Nebraska Hall, Lincoln,
NE 68588 (corresponding author). E-mail: cahn2@unl.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Room 2340 G.G. Brown Building,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: shdpm@umich.edu
3
Edwin Howard Armstrong Professor of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics and Professor of Earth and Environmental
Engineering and of Computer Science, Columbia Univ., City of New York,
510 Southwest Mudd Building, 500 West 120th St., New York, NY 10027.
E-mail: feniosky@columbia.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 2, 2013; approved on
June 13, 2013; published online on June 15, 2013. Discussion period open
until September 30, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3801/04014042(11)/$25.00.
carbon—cause immediate and adverse effects to public health
and the ecosystem (EPA CAAAC 2006). Reducing exhaust emis-
sions from construction equipment use can be achieved not only by
using cleaner equipment and fuel, but also by improving opera-
tional efficiency, which means the reduction of engine idling (that
generates emissions without any production) (Ahn and Lee 2013).
The operational efficiency of construction equipment, which re-
fers to the ratio of the productive work time of equipment to its total
operating time (Nichols and Day 2005), is a piece of key informa-
tion in the analysis of a construction equipment operation. It is
generally used in accounting for nonproductive equipment time,
including the operator’s need for personal breaks and communica-
tion with other personnel, as well as the side effect from interacting
with equipment and crews (e.g., off-road trucks’ waiting in a queue
to be loaded by an excavator) (Lewis et al. 2011). In the practice
of estimating construction equipment productivity and cost, 75%
(45 min=h) and 83% (50 min =h) of operational efficiencies are
commonly used to account mainly for the operators’ breaks, during
which equipment is usually turned off (Peurifoy et al. 2011). On the
other hand, there exist little data on the average equipment idling
productive work (EPA 2009), although this is a crucial piece of
information for productivity measurement and emission reduction.
The idling rate of construction equipment is highly dependent
on various characteristics (e.g., performed task type, equipment
fleet configuration, job site conditions) of an operation involving
equipment. Generally, the idling rate of equipment in typical con-
struction operations is known to be quite higher than that of on-road
vehicles and off-road equipment use in other industries that are
controlled under strict anti-idling laws (EPA 2006). For example,
Komatsu excavators in Colorado and Wyoming were reported to be
idling approximately 35% of the time (Hagerty 2011). In a project
located in an urban area, the idling rate of equipment is much
higher (up to 60 ∼ 70%) due to both the density of the job site
and traffic delays (Ahn and Lee 2013). In this context, monitoring
operational efficiency, which includes the measurement of the

© ASCE 04014042-1 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042

 idling rate, offers great opportunities to enhance the productivity
and environmental performance of construction operations. How-
ever, these monitoring efforts are still quite primitive due to the lack
of a practical monitoring method. Several emerging technologies
exist, such as vehicle health monitoring systems (VHMS) of the
original equipment manufacturers (OEM) or supplied by third par-
ties, which allow for the accurate monitoring of equipment use.
Still, they have compatibility issues across different manufacturers,
and their implementation in the aftermarket is still costly (Monnot
and Williams 2011; Moore 2012). Furthermore, in the majority of
old equipment, it is hardly implemented without extensive modi-
fication, since the implementation of VHMS requires a connection
to legacy engine systems (Sharif and Lee 2010). In this context, the
application of low-cost accelerometers has the potential to address
the challenges of existing technologies by providing a low-cost
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and nonintrusive monitoring system of the equipment operation.
To this end, this paper evaluates the feasibility of using accelerom-
eter data to measure the operational efficiency of construction
equipment. The paper begins with the review of existing works
on the relationship between operational efficiency and environmen-
tal performance, enabling technologies for monitoring environmen-
tal performance and equipment operational efficiency, and the
applications of accelerometers in construction. The following sec-
tions of the paper describe the details of the experiments that were
carried out and the processes to analyze the data from the experi-
ments. The paper ends with a discussion of the results and a con-
clusion of the work.
Background
Importance of Operational Efficiency in Reducing Air
Pollutant Emissions
Ahn and Lee (2013) formulated the relationship between pollutant
productivity and operational efficiency, as follows:
Production
Pollutant productivity ¼
Pollutant
Production Energy Fuel
¼ × × ð1Þ
Energy Fuel Pollutant
In Eq. (1), Pollutant productivity, which is production per
unit of pollutant (i.e., cubic meters of material per Kg CO2 ), rep-
resents the environmental performance of construction operations.
Among the determinants of Pollutant productivity, Energy/Fuel
indicates the fuel efficiency of a resource utilized in operations,
which is the amount of energy generated by a resource per unit
of fuel (i.e., kWh per liter of fuel). Fuel/Pollutant is highly related
to the environmental property of fuel consumed in resources, since
Fuel/Pollutant is an inverse form of the fuel’s intrinsic emission
intensity, which is the amount of pollutant emitted per unit of fuel
consumed (i.e., Kg CO2 per liter of fuel). These two variables are
hardly changeable once the construction phase starts since the
change of equipment and fuel type for improving the environmental
performance rarely occurs in the middle of the operation. There-
fore, Production/Energy—which represents the operational effi-
ciency of a process or resource (the amount of production per
unit of energy usage, for example, cubic meters of material per
kWh)—is the most important variable in determining the environ-
mental performance during construction (Ahn and Lee 2013).
To this end, monitoring the operational efficiency of resources em-
ployed in operations provides an efficient means of monitoring the
environmental performance. Ahn and Lee (2013) also defined the
© ASCE 04014042-2
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042
operating equipment efficiency (OEE) as the ratio of valuable
(nonidle) operating time to total operating (equipment engine is
on) time of equipment, and provided the way to quantify the
amount of emissions from construction operations based on
measured OEEs:
X
Emissions ¼ A × EFvaluable × ½OEE þ ð1 − OEEÞ × ρ

equipment
ð2Þ
where A = activity (h); OEE = operating equipment efficiency;
EFvaluable = emission factor for valuable operating time (working
modes) (g=h); and ρ = the generalized ratio of idle to nonidle emis-
sion rate of construction equipment (Lewis et al. 2012).
While different working modes (e.g., digging, moving) of
equipment yield different levels of emission rates, the variability
of emission rates due to different working modes is very small com-
pared to the difference of emission rates between valuable and non-
valuable (idling) operation (Abolhasani et al. 2008). Therefore,
such a variability of emission rates between different working
modes can be ignored in the development of the emission inventory
at the project level (Ahn and Lee 2013). Then, Eq. (2) indicates that
the environmental performance monitoring of construction opera-
tions can be achieved with the measurement of two key pieces of
data: usage hours and the OEE of each piece of equipment. How-
ever, these pieces of data are not tracked in current practices of
construction operations. While daily reports on the use of equip-
ment provide information on the equipment utilized (Ahn et al.
2011), these reports do not provide information on the usage hours
and OEE of each piece of equipment. This lack of disaggregated
data also hinders the accurate monitoring of environmental
performance.
Enabling Technologies for Monitoring the
Environmental Performance and Operational Efficiency
of Construction Vehicles
Several emerging technologies exist that allow a more accurate
monitoring of the environmental performance (Ahn et al. 2011).
Portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) provide a means
of direct measurement of air pollutants emitted through the tailpipe
of construction equipment. PEMS are, however, too costly (in ex-
cess of $100,000 per unit) to be employed for the simultaneous
monitoring of a number of energy/emission sources in a project,
so their use is limited to the measurement of engine emissions
for research purposes. In addition, vehicle health monitoring
systems (VHMS) of construction equipment are available in re-
cently manufactured models of construction equipment, and allow
for the conversion of the electronic control unit (ECU) data from
on-board diagnostics (OBD) protocols (e.g., OBD-II, EOBD,
JOBD, and CAN bus) of construction equipment into useful infor-
mation (e.g., usage, OEE, and fuel consumption). However, old
equipment—which is the majority of equipment in use—does
not have OBD supports; therefore, VHMS implementation in such
equipment is hardly possible (Sharif and Lee 2010). Even a piece of
equipment with OBD supports requires extensive modification or
the installation of additional devices. In the case of using aftermar-
ket devices, their price is typically in excess of $1,000 per machine
(the price of OEM devices is usually much higher), and there are
also additional expenses for developing and operating integration
software (Moore 2012). In addition, there is a compatibility issue
between different manufacturers due to a lack of standardized
protocol, and this creates another challenge in performing compre-
hensive monitoring for contractors who own, rent, or purchase
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 machines from diverse manufacturers (Monnot and Williams 2011;
Moore 2012; Azar and McCabe 2012).
In recent years, several research studies have focused on an au-
tomated tracking of construction equipment operation. El-Omari
and Moselhi (2009) and Ergen et al. (2007) utilized radio-
frequency identification (RFID) combined with global positioning
system (GPS) technology for the automated location and tracking
of construction equipment. However, the GPS-based approach is
still incapable of tracking the stationary operation of construction
equipment, while the combination of GPS and RFID provides a
high accuracy in locating resources. On the other hand, Azar
and McCabe (2012), Heydarian et al. (2012), Gong and Caldas
(2009), and Zou and Kim (2007) introduced vision-based tech-
niques that track construction equipment operation by using video
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cameras. However, vision-based techniques provide only limited
information based on the visual scope of cameras, and still have
difficulties in providing high accuracies when there are high levels
of noise (e.g., entity overlaps, moving backgrounds, and varying
light conditions), which are common in dynamic construction
surroundings.
Applications of Accelerometers in Construction
An accelerometer is an electromechanical device that measures
proper acceleration. The recent advent of small-sized, low-cost mi-
croelectromechanical (MEMS) accelerometers has resulted in the
utilization of accelerometers in various applications, including
the sensing of a smartphone’s movement and gesture changes.
Within the construction industry, MEMS accelerometers have been
used for the health monitoring of structures by sensing the struc-
tures’ vibrations (Spencer et al. 2004). In addition, several studies
(Joshua and Varghese 2011; Cheng et al. 2013a, b) have used ac-
celerometer data for the activity analysis of construction workers.
Akhavian and Behzadan (2012) utilized a set of inertial measure-
ment sensors (magnetometer, gyroscope, and accelerometer) to de-
tect the three-dimensional orientation of construction equipment.
Accelerometers have also been used for the control and condi-
tion monitoring (e.g., engine fault detection) of internal combustion
(IC) engines in vehicles, including construction machines (Antoni
et al. 2002). The basic underlying idea of such applications is that
every moving component or physical process involved in the op-
eration of an engine produces its own unique vibration signal,
which is referred to as the vibration signature. It is assumed that
vibration signatures created by the same operating engine have
the same features under the same conditions. For the conditioning
monitoring of IC engines, expensive conventional accelerometers
are generally used, since condition monitoring requires a high level
of precision in sensing vibrations (Albartar et al. 2008). Compared
to conditioning monitoring, measuring equipment operational effi-
ciency by detecting the activity of equipment (e.g., engine-off, idle,
working) is assumed to be a simpler application that can be achiev-
able with MEMS accelerometers. This is because different activ-
ities exhibit a notable difference in vibration signatures, while
the condition monitoring of IC engines (e.g., engine fault) relies
on a more subtle difference. In this context, the paper evaluates
the feasibility of using MEMS accelerometers as a monitor of op-
eration efficiency. However, a challenge in using MEMS acceler-
ometers as a monitor of operational efficiency in this research is
that we aim to achieve the nonintrusive measurement of different
duty cycles (e.g., attaching an accelerometer on equipment exterior
or placing it inside the cabin), while the condition monitoring of IC
engines requires the installation of the accelerometer directly to the
engine block.
© ASCE 04014042-3
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042
Research Objective and Methodology
The objective of this research is to test the hypothesis that signals
captured by MEMS accelerometers that are installed on construc-
tion equipment can be used to analyze the OEE of that equipment,
which indicates the ratio of the valuable operating time (nonidling)
to the total operating time of the equipment. The measurement
of OEEs can be formulated as a problem that classifies the
second-by-second operation of equipment into three activity modes
(i.e., working, idling, and engine-off) based on acceleration data.
The underlying idea of the hypothesis is twofold: first, any nonsta-
tionary operating of construction equipment (e.g., driving) will
create a notable level of acceleration compared to background
noise; second, any stationary operating of construction equipment
(e.g., controlling excavators’ booms) will generate distinguishable
patterns of acceleration signals compared to the idling and engine-
off modes. The former idea has already been demonstrated by the
application of accelerometers to detect passenger vehicle motion
(MacDonald 1990; Baldwin et al. 2004), but the latter idea needs
to be tested due to limited previous studies on the vibration of con-
struction vehicles.
In this context, the initial experiment is conducted under an in-
structed environment in order to analyze patterns of accelerometer
data from the stationary operating of construction equipment. An
exploratory data analysis of the experiment result is conducted to
discover distinguishable patterns of accelerometer data captured
from the stationary operating. Multiple features are extracted from
raw accelerometer data, and the statistical significance is investi-
gated in differences between distributions of features extracted
during three activity modes. Next, experiments to collect acceler-
ometer data in real-world applications are conducted in order to
evaluate the feasibility of the proposed approach in various real-
world duty cycles. Data are collected from different excavators that
perform diverse stationary and nonstationary operations. The col-
lected data are segmented into a fixed window size, and features are
extracted from segmented data based on the analysis of the experi-
ment result. The extracted features are trained and tested with
different classification algorithms that are found in the Waikato
Environment for Knowledge Analysis (WEKA) Machine Learning
Algorithms Toolkit (Hall et al. 2009). The performances of differ-
ent classifiers are evaluated.
Acceleration signals from construction vehicles under the study
were measured using the accelerometer mounted inside the cabin
of vehicles, and the operation of construction vehicles during
the study was videotaped. The accelerometer used (LIS331DL,
STMicroelectronics 2013) was the one embedded in a smartphone,
which can sense acceleration in the x-, y-, and z-directions. The
sensitivity of the accelerometer was 16.2 mg ðmilli-gÞ=digit, and
its measurement range was 2 g. The raw data from the acceler-
ometer is collected without any data processing (e.g., the removal
of outliner) through the smartphone application developed for the
experiments. The signals acquired by the accelerometer are
sampled at a rate of 100 Hz. The mounting location of the accel-
erometer varies by vehicle, but is generally mounted on a rigid
block around the control system within the cabin, as illustrated
in Fig. 1(a). Video recordings of vehicle operations are used to label
actual operational modes of second-by-second vehicle operation; a
vehicle is determined to be idling if it does not show any physical
movement for more than 3 s while its engine is on.
Experimental Analysis
An experiment is designed and carried out to analyze signals from
an excavator’s stationary operating. The operation of the excavator
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 Fig. 1. (a and b) Devices mounted inside an excavator cabin and axes of acceleration relative to smartphone; (c) excavator in experimental analysis
and axes of acceleration relative to equipment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

during the experiment is strictly instructed, such that the excavator
does not have any movement except the up-and-down movement of
its boom. It is also instructed to be idle for several seconds before
and after operating its boom, in order to capture the signals from
idling. In addition, a recently manufactured excavator, as illustrated
in Fig. 1(c), is chosen to provide a more restricted experiment envi-
ronment that creates the least difference of vibration levels between
different activity modes, since newer vehicle models adopt better
vibration control technologies for the operator comfort.
Fig. 2 shows the x-axis readings during the entire period of the
experiment, and Fig. 3 illustrates the examples of three axes’ read-
ings from 1-s time segments that represent engine-off, idling, and
stationary operating modes. It is observed that different activity
modes create different levels of acceleration in three axes, and that

0.14
0.12

0.1

0.08
Acceleration (g)

0.06

0.04

0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (s)

Fig. 2. x-axis acceleration signals in experimental analysis

0.2 0.2 0.2

X-axis
0 0 0
Y-axis

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

Acceleration (mg)

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

Z-axis
-1 -1 -1

20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100

Engine-Off Idling Working

Fig. 3. Acceleration signals from three axes for engine-off, idling, and stationary operating modes

© ASCE 04014042-4 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042

 the signal patterns in the three axes are quite similar in terms
of increasing and decreasing trends. The raw data are divided into
1-s segments, and then features are generated based on the 100
readings contained within each 1-s segment. Any overlapping
between data frames is not considered at this point.
A total of 15 time-domain features are generated from each data
frame. All of the features except the mean features are computed
from the detrended data (removing the mean of the signal). The
features extracted are the following:
1. Average resultant acceleration: This feature is evaluated by
averaging the resultant acceleration values that are determined
by the sum of the root mean square acceleration values of the
three axes. This feature also represents a short-term energy of
signals.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2. Mean: This feature is evaluated by averaging the raw samples
over the window for each axis, in order to represent the DC
component (the mean value of the waveform) of the signal. A
total of three mean features are generated from three axes.
3. Standard deviation: This feature represents the standard devia-
tion value of accelerations. A total of three standard deviation
features are generated from three axes.
4. Peak: This feature represents the maximum absolute value of
accelerations in each data frame. A total of three peak features
are generated from three axes.
5. Correlation: This feature measures the correlation of accelera-
tion between each pair of axes. A total of three correlation fea-
tures are generated.
Fig. 4 illustrates a scatterplot that depicts the values of several
features: average resultant acceleration, x-axis mean (AvgX), x-axis
standard deviation (StdX), x-axis peak (PeakX), and correlation
between x- and y-axes (CorrXY). The data points that indicate
the time frames during the engine-off mode represent the features
Fig. 4. Scatterplot of average resultant acceleration, x-axis mean (AvgX), x-axis standard deviation (StdX), x-axis peak (PeakX), and correlation
between x- and y-axes (CorrXY)
© ASCE 04014042-5
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042
of the background noise (unwanted signal). The result indicates
that the distribution of average resultant acceleration, standard
deviation, and peak values are highly correlated with activity
modes of time frames, while mean and correlation features do
not provide a strong discrimination between different activity
modes. In the distribution of average resultant acceleration, stan-
dard deviation, and peak values, the engine-off time frames have
lower values than other activity mode time frames, while the work-
ing time frames tend to have higher values compared to others.
In particular, the engine-off mode time frames are clearly distin-
guishable in the distribution of those features, since any overlap
with other groups is not found except one data point, which is as-
sumed to be a result of external noise (e.g., unintended knock on the
sensor). These features also provide a good basis for classifying
idling and working data frames, although some overlaps between
the idling group and the work group are found. The features that are
extracted from y- and z-axis data are found to have similar patterns
as the feature extracted from x-axis data. For example, Fig. 5 illus-
trates the values of standard deviation and peak features in the x-,
y-, and z-axes. While standard deviation and peak values in the
y- and z-axes have different scales than x-axis features, they still
provide a distinguishable power between the groups of data frames.
The statistical significance of difference in distributions of average
resultant acceleration, standard deviation (three axes), and peak
(three axes) features between three groups is tested with the analy-
sis of variance (ANOVA), and is confirmed.
The result of this experiment indicates two things. First, any
engine operation of construction equipment, including idling,
creates distinguishable patterns of acceleration signals compared
to the background noise that is generated during the engine-off
mode. Second, the stationary operating of an excavator—even
under a highly restricted environment—creates distinguishable
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Scatterplot of standard deviation and peak values in x-, y-, and z-axes

patterns of acceleration signals, as compared to the idling of an
excavator.
Real-World Operation Experiments
This section describes the experiments conducted to classify a real-
world operation of excavators using accelerometer data, in order to
measure their operational efficiency. Excavators’ operations ana-
lyzed in this section include various types of stationary and non-
stationary operation of excavators.
Data Collection
The acceleration data is collected from four individual experiments.
The details of excavators and their duty cycle performed during the
data collection are presented in Table 1. Experiment 1 collected
data from a medium-sized excavator that performed utility work
(placing wooden trench boxes and backfilling). While backfilling
required very tumultuous actions of the excavator, placing wooden
trench boxes involved relatively modest actions. Experiment 2 col-
lected data from a large-sized excavator that bored holes for dew-
atering using a vibratory pile driver. The performed work repeated a
working cycle that consisted of moving, locating the pile driver,
driving the pile, and pulling out the pile. While driving the pile
generated an excessive level of vibration, moving and locating
the pile driver involved very modest levels of vibration. Due to
the excessive vibration during driving the pile, the additional
mounting device [Fig. 1(b)] was used to install the smartphone
to the side window inside the cabin. A wheeled excavator was
chosen for Experiments 3 and 4, in order to identify the effect
of different undercarriage types of construction vehicles. Two in-
dependent data collections are made for this excavator to analyze
the effect of different duty cycles that the excavator performs. In
Experiment 3, the excavator mainly cleared and moved waste,
and processed debris with another skid-steer loader. In Experiment
4, the excavator mainly demolished existing ground pavement, with
its stabilizers down. In each experiment, only idling and working

Table 1. Equipment Specifications and Their Performed Work in the Experiments

Experiment Equipment specifications Duration Observed OEE
number Model (HP, model year) Performed work (min) (%)
1 CAT 321C LCR Crawler type (148 hp, 2010) Install utility and backfill 29 80.2
2 CAT 330D Crawler type (270 hp, 2004) Drill dewatering holes 40 81.3
3 Volvo EW180C Wheeled type (180 hp, 2008) Clear debris 33 69.9
4 Volvo EW180C Wheeled type (180 hp, 2008) Demolish existing surface pavement 50 74.6

© ASCE 04014042-6 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042

 modes were observed since the excavators were kept running and
were not turned off. Therefore, the key focus of the experiments
was to detect the idling operation from various duty cycles of ex-
cavators that create different patterns of vibration.
Data Processing and Classification
The accelerometer data are segmented into 128-sample windows
with 64 samples overlapping between consecutive windows
(50% overlapping). Feature extraction on sliding windows with
50% overlap demonstrated success in past studies (Bao and Intille
2004). The window size of 128 samples is chosen to enable the
speedy computation of the fast Fourier transform (FFT) used for
some of the features. The change of the window size from 100 sam-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ples (1 s), which was used in labeling the second-by-second oper-
ation of excavators from video recordings, to 128 samples, requires
merging and redefining the labels of segments. When merging and
relabeling segments, a merged segment is labeled as idling when
more than 80% of samples in the segment were originally annotated
as idling via a video recording. The merge process with the 80%
threshold rule for determining an idling label is found to create less
than a 1% difference in the overall idling duration compared to the
original idling duration determined by video recording in each
experiment.
In addition to average resultant acceleration, mean, standard
deviation, peak, and correlation, two additional frequency-domain
features—spectral entropy and spectral centroid—are extracted
Fig. 6. Scatterplot of spectral centroid values in x-, y-, and z-axes
© ASCE
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042
from acceleration signals in three axes. Spectral entropy is calcu-
lated as the normalized information entropy of the discrete
FFT component magnitudes of the signal. Spectral centroid is cal-
culated as the weighted mean of the frequencies present in the sig-
nal with their magnitudes as the weights. These frequency-domain
features may support the discrimination of time frames that have
similar values of time domain features. In fact, the spectral
centroid in the z-axis is found to provide a strong discriminative
power. Fig. 6 illustrates a scatterplot of the normalized spectral
centroid values in Experiment 1. While the z-axis spectral centroid
of working time frames has values varying from 0.3 to 0.6, most
idling time frames have a value less than 0.01. This tendency is
also found in spectral centroid features extracted from other
experiments.
Classification of the extracted features is conducted using sev-
eral supervised classifiers that are found in the WEKA Machine
Learning Algorithms Toolkit (Hall et al. 2009). The following clas-
sifiers are used to classify activity modes:
1. Naïve Bayes: Simple Bayesian networks that are composed of
directed acyclic graphs with only one parent (representing the
unobserved node) and several children (corresponding to ob-
served nodes) with a strong assumption of independence
among child nodes.
2. Instance-based learning (IBL): k-nearest neighbor (KNN)
classifier that is based on the principle that the instances within
a data set will generally exist in close proximity to other in-
stances that have similar properties.
04014042-7 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 3. Decision tree (J48): The implementation of the C4.5 decision
tree building algorithm that chooses one attribute of the data
that most effectively splits its set of samples into subsets en-
riched in one class or the other at each node of the tree, based
on information entropy.
4. Multilayer perceptron: A feedforward artificial neural network
model that maps sets of input data onto a set of appropriate
output with one or more layers between the input and output
layers.

Results and Analyses

The percentage accuracy of classifiers is evaluated through the
10-fold cross-validation. The statistical results of classifier perfor- Fig. 7. Classification accuracies with different window sizes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mances are obtained from 10 runs of the 10-fold cross-validation.

Mean and standard deviation for classification accuracy in each
experiment is summarized in Table 2.
Overall, the classification accuracies of IBL, J48, and multilayer
perceptron are over 93% in any data set, while the accuracy of
Naïve Bayes is quite lower than other classifiers. A paired t-test
result indicates that the classification performances of IBL, J48,
and Multilayer perceptron are not significantly different in most
cases. In addition, the classification accuracies of IBL, J48, and
Multilayer perceptron do not fluctuate greatly over different experi-
ments. This indicates that the classification accuracies based on ac-
celerometer signals are not greatly affected by an excavator’s
undercarriage type (track-type versus wheel-type), size, age, or
duty cycle. This result also implies that the effect of the mounting
location, orientation, and method of the accelerometer is not
notable; even in Experiment 2 where the additional mounting de-
vice is used, any significant difference in classification accuracy
compared to other experiments is not found.
In addition, the effect of the window size in the data segmenta-
tion is analyzed. The data are segmented with different window
sizes: 256, 512, and 1,024 samples. Different window sizes in
the data segmentation certainly affect the minimum idling duration
that can be recognized, since the data segmentation with different
window sizes involves merging and relabeling data segments, as
explained in the previous section. For example, with a window size
of 128 samples (1.2 s) and the 80% threshold rule for determining
an idling label, the segment relabeled as idling in the merging pro-
cess has at least 102 samples (1 s) that were originally annotated as
idling. Then, with a window size of 1,024 samples (10.2 s), the
segment should have at least 819 samples (8 s) that were originally
annotated as idling in order to be relabeled as idling. This means
that shorter than 8 s of a continuous pause of equipment motion in
this window size is highly likely to be labeled as working. The per-
formances of classifiers in different window sizes are evaluated
using 10 times 10-fold cross-validation. Fig. 7 illustrates its result
in Experiment 2. All of the classifiers’ accuracies have increased
in a bigger window size, with one exception (IBL classifier from
512 sample window to 1,024 sample window). In particular, the
performance of the Naïve Bayes classifier has greatly improved
with a bigger window size. With a window size of 1,024 samples,
the classification accuracy is found to be over 95% with any clas-
sifier. In the results from the data sets of other experiments, the
greatest accuracy is also found in the classification using a window
size of 1,024 samples. The highest classification accuracies in
Experiments 1, 3, and 4 with a window size of 1,024 samples
are 95.34% (with J48), 96.13% (with multilayer perceptron),
and 98.67% (with Naïve Bayes), respectively.
Another point of interest is the need for the training process
as an excavator performs different duty cycles. For example, in
Experiments 3 and 4, data were collected from the same excavator,
but the excavator performed different duty cycles in the two
experiments. In order to analyze the effect of a change in duty
cycle, the classifiers are trained using the data set of Experiment
3, and their performances in Experiment 4 are evaluated. The clas-
sification performances in Experiment 3 are also evaluated in a
way that uses the data set of Experiment 4 as training data. The
result is presented in Table 3. The overall accuracies in both cases
are lower than the original result in Table 2, but the greatest
accuracies of 95.1 and 86.6% obtained in Experiments 3 and 4
are still significant. In particular, the performance of the Naïve
Bayes classifier remains steady in spite of using the training and
test data sets extracted from different experiments. It is noteworthy
that the accelerometer was newly installed for each experiment, and
that the mounting location and orientation of the accelerometer
changed slightly over the experiments. Thus, a change of the accel-
erometer location and orientation may greatly contribute to the
classification errors found in Table 2. In turn, this result indicates
that a satisfactory accuracy can be obtained using pretrained clas-
sifiers in spite of a slight change in the accelerometer location and
orientation.
In addition, the discriminating powers of features in each experi-
ment are evaluated using the correlation-based feature selection

Table 3. Classification Accuracies Using Training and Test Data Sets

Extracted from Different Experiments
Table 2. Classification Accuracies Using Different Classifiers
% of instances correctly predicted
% of instances correctly predicted
(average  standard deviation) Training set: experiment 3 Training set: experiment 4
Experiment Multilayer Classifiers Test set: experiment 4 Test set: experiment 3
number Naïve Bayes IBL J48 perceptron
Naïve Bayes 95.1 86.6
1 71.71  2.89 94.60  1.47 94.78  1.29 94.14  1.75 IBL 94.3 81.2
2 89.92  1.44 93.37  1.37 94.80  1.08 93.56  1.01 J48 76.4 75.0
3 86.50  1.90 94.18  1.18 95.01  1.17 94.93  1.13 Multilayer 94.5 84.9
4 96.03  0.98 96.75  0.84 97.48  0.70 97.62  0.84 perceptron

© ASCE 04014042-8 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042

 Table 4. Selected Features with High Discriminative Powers from idling to working modes or from working to idling modes.
Experiment This can be explained by the possible variation of engine submodes
number Selected features during excavators’ idling. During idling, excavators’ engines typ-
ically go through four submodes: low idle, transient between low
1 Peak (x- and z-axes), correlation (between x- and y-axes),
spectral centroid (x-axis) idle and high idle, high idle, and transient between high idle and
2 ARA, standard deviation (z-axis), peak (y-axis), spectral nonidle (Abolhasani et al. 2008). When the operator is ready to start
centroid (x- and y-axes) using the bucket, he/she increases the engine idle speed to a high-
3 Mean (x axis), standard deviation (x-, y-, and z-axes), idle mode, which is run at a higher engine revolutions per minute
peak (y-axis) (RPM) than a low-idle mode. Therefore, during short idling periods
4 Standard deviation (z-axis), peak (x-, y-, and z-axes), or transient periods, excavators may have run at high-idle or tran-
correlation (between x- and y-axes), spectral centroid sient mode between high and nonidle. On the other hand, during
(x- and z-axes) long idling periods, excavators may have run mostly at a low-idle
mode. From the practical point of view, a short pause (3 to 5 s) of
the equipment motion can barely be considered nonvaluable oper-
ation, since it often occurs between the change of motion (body
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(CFS) method (Hall et al. 2009). The CFS method finds a subset of
features that are highly correlated with the classification and with
other features, yet uncorrelated with one another. The Best First
search approach (Hall et al. 2009) is used as the search approach
of a subset of features. The features selected through CFS in each
experiment are presented in Table 4. Overall, Standard deviation,
Peak, and Spectral centroid are found to have strong discriminating
powers among features. This result agrees with the finding in the
exploratory data analysis of the previous section.
Discussion
The primary purpose of classifying accelerometer signals into dif-
ferent activity modes of equipment is to automatically measure the
OEEs of equipment. The acceptable range of the classification ac-
curacy thus needs to be investigated in terms of the effects of the
classification accuracy on the accuracy in the OEE measurement.
Table 5 summarizes the possible deviations in OEE measurement
when using the results of the high-performance classifiers (IBL,
J48, and Multilayer perceptron) in each experiment. Since Type I
errors (false idling) and Type II errors (false working) in the clas-
sification offset each other in the OEE measurement, the accuracy
in the OEE measurement is usually higher than the classification
accuracy. Over 93% of the classification accuracy is found to create
less than a 2% deviation between the observed and measured OEEs
in most cases, except for the Multilayer perceptron in Experiment
2. This level of error rate in the OEE measurement is considered to
be acceptable, taking into account that even the data segmentation
process (e.g., label merge due to a bigger window size) may cause
up to a 1% difference in the observed OEE values. In particular, the
IBL classifier is found to provide more accurate results (less than a
1% deviation) in the OEE measurement, while its classification ac-
curacy is similar to that of J43 and Multilayer perceptron in
most cases.
The classification errors are mostly found in the short idling
periods that continue from 3 to 5 s, and in the transient periods
direction or initiating boom use) of equipment. When we define
idling with a longer period of continuous motion pause, the clas-
sification accuracy greatly improves, by allowing the discard of er-
rors in short idling periods. The classification accuracy with the
practical definition of idling (longer period of continuous motion
pause) can be anticipated from the results of using a bigger window
size in the data segmentation, since the window size is highly rel-
evant to the minimum idling duration to be recognized. As shown
in Fig. 7, when the minimum idling duration to be recognized in-
creased to around 8 s (1,024-sample window size), the classifica-
tion accuracies of all the classifiers improved to over 95%. In
addition, a bigger window size in the data segmentation helps alle-
viate the effect of external noises (e.g., unintended knock on the
sensor), since averaging feature values over the window smoothes
out a spike in the signals due to external noises.
Monitoring the operational efficiency of equipment has drawn
the attention of contractors, as a means of locating ways to improve
their productivity. Recently, the reduction of equipment idling
through monitoring OEE is more emphasized due to growing in-
terests in the environmental sustainability of construction projects
(EPA 2006). While a vehicle health monitoring system that allows
for the accurate tracking of equipment operation spreads out along
the distribution of recent models of construction equipment,
contractors still have a clear need to appropriate technology to
comprehensively track the OEE of their equipment fleet that is
outdated or that consists of various manufacturers’ models
(Azar and McCabe 2012). The presented approach provides a
measure to monitor the OEE of equipment with any age or manu-
facturer. The biggest advantage of the presented approach over
other existing enablers is its relative low cost and effort to construct
a monitoring system for many pieces of equipment employed
in a large-scale project. The cost of a MEMS accelerometer
including data processing units is very low (around $50 per unit,
STMicroelectronics 2013) compared to other existing enablers.
Also, the presented approach does not require any connection with
an embedded system that controls equipment (i.e., it is nonintru-
sive) and its accuracy is quite robust in spite of the possible varia-
tion of the mounting location and method of the accelerometer.

Table 5. Measured OEEs Using Low-Performance (Naïve Bayes) and

High-Performance (IBL) Classifiers Conclusions
Measured OEE (deviation)
Automated measurement of the operational efficiency of con-
Experiment Observed Multilayer struction equipment provides key information in identifying
number OEE (%) IBL J48 perceptron
opportunities to improve the productivity and environmental
1 80.2 80.1% (−0.1) 81.5% (þ1.3) 80.4% (þ0.2) performance of construction operations. This paper presented a
2 81.3 81.7% (þ0.4) 82.9% (þ1.6) 83.5% (þ2.2) promising approach to measuring the operational efficiency of con-
3 69.9 69.4% (−0.5) 71.3% (þ1.4) 70.7% (þ0.8) struction equipment using low-cost accelerometers. The results in a
4 74.6 74.2% (−0.4) 75.4% (þ0.8) 75.4% (þ0.8)
real-world operation of excavators indicated that the presented

© ASCE 04014042-9 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042

 approach can achieve an accuracy of over 93%; this level of accu-
racy is acceptable for practical applications since it created less than
a 2% deviation in OEE measurements. It was also reported that the
classification accuracy could be greatly enhanced with the practical
definition of equipment idling.
The approach to measuring the operational efficiency of con-
struction equipment using an accelerometer has clear advantages
over current enabling technologies in terms of technological com-
patibility with equipment fleets that are outdated or that consist of
diverse manufacturers’ models, as well as the economic feasibility
of implementation. The application of the proposed approach will
contribute not only to improving the environmental performance,
but also to helping monitor and enhance the productivity of overall
operations by detecting excessive nonvaluable operation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Potential Applications and Future Directions
The main focus of the presented approach is to automatically clas-
sify equipment operation into working, idling, and engine-off
modes using MEMS accelerometer data, in order to measure the
operational efficiency of equipment. While the feasibility of the
presented approach has been tested mainly for excavators in this
paper, its feasibility for other types of equipment needs to be further
tested. Since the nonstationary operation of any type of construc-
tion equipment creates clearly distinguishable accelerometer data,
its feasibility in construction equipment that mostly performs non-
stationary operation (e.g., off-road trucks, scrapers, dozers) is quite
promising. However, its feasibility for equipment that involves a
great deal of stationary operation (e.g., cranes, loaders) needs to
be further investigated by future research. In addition, the preva-
lence of MEMS accelerometers in existing smartphones and the
promising capability of the presented methodology in classifying
equipment operation imply a set of applications for the system.
A list of the potential applications of the presented approach will
be explained subsequently.
Real-Time Monitoring Using a Smartphone
Smartphones are now prevalent in construction companies
(Constructech 2011). Since most current smartphones have MEMS
accelerometers, utilizing a smartphone as a sensor unit will provide
an efficient way to construct a comprehensive real-time monitoring
system of an equipment fleet. The information on the measured
operational efficiency of each piece of equipment can be transferred
wirelessly using the smartphone’s cellular network in real time,
with the location information of equipment that is detected through
a GPS unit embedded in the smartphone. This will provide
construction managers with more vivid and detailed information
on on-going operations.
Defining a Baseline Operational Efficiency for Typical
Construction Operations
Although operational efficiency is a key piece of information in
reliably estimating productivity and costs related to construction
equipment, there are only limited data available for estimators. Data
collection through the applications of the proposed approach will
facilitate the definition of acceptable operational efficiencies for
each type of equipment in various types of construction operations.
This will not only help estimators to develop more reliable esti-
mates that may result in a successful bid, but also allow field man-
agers to have a solid basis on which to evaluate the performance of
their on-site equipment operation.
© ASCE 04014042-10
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042
Multiclass Classification of Equipment Operation
While the operation of equipment has been classified mainly into
the working and idling modes in this paper, the further analysis of
experiment data indicates a promising opportunity for the multi-
class classification of equipment operations. It has been found that
the different actions (e.g., digging, swinging loaded, dumping,
moving forward/backward, rotating cabin) of an excavator create
quite different patterns of acceleration signals. In particular, it is
found that the classification of different actions during working
mode can be greatly facilitated through the transformation of the
coordinates of the acceleration measurements from the device to
the desired coordinates that reflect the relevant axes of vehicle
manipulation (e.g., forward and sideward). Automated recognition
of such equipment actions will provide an effective way to measure
the cycle time of each piece of equipment for a detailed productiv-
ity analysis.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Turner Construction
Company, in particular James Barret (National Director, Integrated
Building Solution), for their considerable help in collecting data.
References
Abolhasani, S., Frey, H. C., Kim, K., Rasdorf, W., Lewis, P., and Pang,
S. H. (2008). “Real-world in-use activity, fuel use, and emissions for
nonroad construction vehicles: A case study for excavators.” J. Air
Waste Manage. Assoc., 58(8), 1033–1046.
Ahn, C., Lee, S. H., and Peña-Mora, F. (2011). “Carbon emissions
quantification and verification strategies for large-scale construction
projects.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Sustainable Design and Construction
(ICSDC), ASCE, Reston, VA.
Ahn, C. R., and Lee, S. (2013). “Importance of operational efficiency
to improve environmental performance of construction operations.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000609,
404–413.
Akhavian, R., and Behzadan, A. H. (2012). “An integrated data collection
and analysis framework for remote monitoring and planning of con-
struction operations.” Adv. Eng. Inform., 26(4), 749–761.
Albartar, A., Mekid, S., Starr, A., and Pertuszkiewicz, R. (2008). “Suitabil-
ity of MEMS accelerometers for condition monitoring: An experimental
study.” Sensor, MDPI, 8(2), 784–799.
Antoni, J., Daniere, J., and Guillet, F. (2002). “Effective vibration analysis
of IC engines using cyclostationarity. Part I—A methodology for
condition monitoring.” J. Sound Vib., 257(5), 815–837.
Azar, E. R., and McCabe, B. M. (2012). “Automated visual recognition
of dump trucks in construction videos.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 26(6),
769–781.
Baldwin, K. C., Duncan, D. D., and West, S. K. (2004). “The driver monitor
system: A means of assessing driver performance.” Johns Hopkins APL
Tech. Digest, 25(3), 269–277.
Bao, L., and Intille, S. S. (2004). “Activity recognition from user-annotated
acceleration data.” Proc., Pervasive Computing 2004, Springer, Berlin,
1–17.
Cheng, T., Migliaccio, G., Teizer, J., and Gatti, U. (2013a). “Data fusion
of real-time location sensing and physiological status monitoring for
ergonomics analysis of construction workers.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000222, 320–335.
Cheng, T., Teizer, J., Migliaccio, G., and Gatti, U. (2013b). “Automated
task-level activity analysis through fusion of real time location sensors
and worker’s thoracic posture data.” Autom. Constr., 29, 24–39.
Constructech. (2011). Constructech IT Playbook 2011, Specialty
Publishing, Carol Stream, IL.
El-Omari, S., and Moselhi, O. (2009). “Integrating automated data acquis-
ition technologies for progress reporting of construction projects.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 Proc., 26th ISARC, International Association for Automation and
Robotics in Construction.
Environmental Protection Agnecy (EPA). (2006). Compilation of state,
county, and local anti-idling regulations, EPA420-B-06-004, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Ann Arbor, MI.
EPA. (2008). Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions in key industrial
sectors, EPA 100-R-08-002, Sector Strategies Division, US EPA,
Washington, DC.
EPA. (2009). Potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the
construction sector, US EPA, Washington, DC 〈http://www.epa.gov/
sectors/pdf/construction-sector-report.pdf〉 (Apr. 10, 2013).
EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). (2006). Recommen-
dations for reducing emissions from the legacy diesel fleet, US EPA,
Washington, DC 〈http://www.epa.gov/diesel/documents/caaac-apr06
.pdf〉 (Jul. 24, 2010).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 07/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ergen, E., Akinci, B., East, B., and Kirby, J. (2007). “Tracking components
and maintenance history within a facility utilizing radio frequency
identification technology.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0887-3801(2007)21:1(11), 11–20.
Gong, J., and Caldas, C. H. (2009). “Construction site vision workbench: A
software framework for real-time process analysis of cyclic construction
operations.” Proc., ASCE Int. Workshop on Computing in Civil Engi-
neering, ASCE, Reston, VA, 64–73.
Gong, J., and Caldas, C. H. (2011). “An object recognition, tracking, and
contextual reasoning-based video interpretation method for rapid pro-
ductivity analysis of construction operations.” Autom. Constr., 20(8),
1211–1226.
Hagerty, J. R. (2011). “Big brother keeps an eye on heavy-equipment
fleet.” Wall Street J., 〈http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405
2748703509104576329881589249572.html〉 (Jan. 3, 2012).
Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, G., Reutemann, P., and Witten,
I. A. (2009). “The WEKA data mining software: An update.” SIGKDD
Explorations, 11(1), 10–18.
Heydarian, A., Golparvar-Fard, M., and Niebles, J. C. (2012). “Automated
visual recognition of construction equipment actions using spatio-
temporal features and multiple binary support vector machines.” Proc.,
Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Joshua, L., and Varghese, K. (2011). “Accelerometer-based activity
recognition in construction.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
CP.1943-5487.0000097, 370–379.
© ASCE 04014042-11
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2015, 29(2): 04014042
Lewis, P., Leming, M., Frey, H. C., and Rasdorf, W. (2011). “Assessing
effects of operational efficiency on pollutant emissions of nonroad
diesel construction equipment.” J. Transp. Res. Board, 2233(2),
11–18.
Lewis, P., Leming, M., and Rasdorf, W. (2012). “Impact of engine
idling on fuel use and CO2 emissions of nonroad diesel construction
equipment.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000068, 31–38.
MacDonald, G. A. (1990). “A review of low cost accelerometers for vehicle
dynamics.” Sensor Actuator Phys., 21(1–3), 303–307.
Monnot, J. M., and Williams, R. C. (2011). “Construction equipment
telematics.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000281, 793–796.
Moore, W. (2012). “Practical telematics.” Construction equipment, 〈http://
www.constructionequipment.com/practical-telematics〉 (May 5, 2013).
Nichols, H., and Day, D. (2005). Moving the Earth: The workbook of
excavation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Peurifoy, R. L., Schexnayder, C. J., Shapira, A., and Schmitt, R. (2011).
Construction planning, equipment, and methods, 8th Ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Sacks, R., Radosavljevic, M., and Barak, R. (2010). “Requirements for
building information modeling based lean production management
systems for construction.” Autom. Constr., 19(5), 641–655.
Sardroud, J. M., Limbachiya, M., and Saremi, A. (2010). “Ubiquitous
tracking and locating of construction resource using GIS and RFID.”
Proc., 6th GIS Conf. Exhibition, (GIS 88), National Cartographic
Center of Iran, Tehran, Iran.
Sharif, M., and Lee, S. (2010). “Measurement of CO2 emissions from con-
struction vehicles.” Proc., CSCE 2010 Annual Conf./11th Int. Environ-
mental Structures Specialty Conf., Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering (CSCE), Montreal.
Spencer, B. F., Jr., Ruiz-Sandoval, M. E., and Kurata, N. (2004). “Smart
sensing technology: Opportunities and challenges.” J. Struct. Contr.
Health Monitor., 11(4), 349–368.
STMicroelectronics. (2013). “LIS331DL datasheet.” 〈http://www.st
.com/st-web-ui/static/active/en/resource/technical/document/datasheet/
CD00172345.pdf〉 (May 5, 2013).
Zou, J., and Kim, H. (2007). “Using hue, saturation, and value color
space for hydraulic excavator idle time analysis.” J. Comput. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2007)21:4(238), 238–246.
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.