Case Study on Output/Productivity of Pneumatic Tired Vibratory Roller (Earth Compaction Equipment) u

IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 3 | Issue 04 | October 2016 ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Case Study on Output/Productivity of Pneumatic Tired Vibratory Roller (Earth Compaction Equipment) under Different Job and Management Conditions H. T. Kadivar Lecturer Department of Civil Engineering Lukhdhirji Engineering College Morbi

Abstract The objectives of this study were to workout output of Pneumatic tired Vibratory Roller considering different job and management factors. With the increased emphasis on road and growth in road network, the technological development and mechanization is taking place rapidly. Compaction is an important activity in road construction. Output of a compaction equipment is equipment productivity which is a measure of the performance of the equipment. It is expressed as the output achieved per equipment hour. The higher the output the better is the productivity. Equipment productivity tells how many units of output, the equipment produces in an hour. It depends on the job conditions & management conditions as well as the operators skill, persistence and co-ordination with other construction forces. To workout output of Pneumatic tired Vibratory Roller, two different sites were selected. Hourly output and volumetric capacity were calculated based on field observation data.

Keywords: Pneumatic Tired Vibratory Roller, Output, Job Conditions, Management Conditions ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I.

INTRODUCTION

A roller is a compactor used to compact soil, gravel, concrete, or asphalt in the construction. Earth compaction equipment play a significant role in the execution of modern high cost time bound construction projects like earthen dams, roads, canals etc. The modern earth compaction is a self-propelled, rubber tired piece of construction equipment used to shape the ground surface for a highway, airport, embankment, earthen dam etc. A Vibratory roller consists of a smooth steel drum in which vibrations are generated by an unbalanced eccentric mass mounted on the axle of the roller or on the frame support by the axle.

Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5

Roller Type Static steel Drum Vibratory smooth Drum Vibratory pad foot Drum Pneumatic tyre Sheep foot

Table-1 Typical Range of Operating parameters of Compaction Equipments Typical Characteristics Soil Type Velocity (km/h) Roller Weight (KN) Roller Width (m) Silt, Sand & Greval 3 to 6 30-100 1.0-2.5 Clean Sand & Gravel 3 to 6 50-100 1.5 - 2.5 Silt , clayey silt 3 to 6 50-100 1.5-2.5 Silt, Clay & sand 6 to 12 250-900 1.5-2.5 Clay 3 to 6 100-150 1.5-2.5

Number of Passes 6-12 4-8 9-18 8-12 12-24

Vibratory rollers (fig.1) are applied to fine grained soils and also to sand-gravel mixtures. vibratory rollers are employed for compaction in confined areas, such as highway shoulders, trench compaction, road widening works, building site preparation sports and play grounds. The Range of Operating parameters of Compaction Equipments are presented in Table 1.

Fig. 1: Pneumatic tired Vibratory Roller

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

89

Case Study on Output/Productivity of Pneumatic Tired Vibratory Roller (Earth Compaction Equipment) under Different Job and Management Conditions (IJSTE/ Volume 3 / Issue 04 / 015)

Output/Production Estimate of Earth Compaction Equipment output, Q (m3/ hr) =

CxWxSX1000 P

Xt

(1)

(as per Ref.03)

Where, C = Efficiency factor W = drum width (m) S = av. Speed (km/hr) P = number of passes t = Layer Thickness (m) Output of the equipment varies with various conditions. Various factors which affect the output of the earth compaction equipments are broadly grouped under two headings.  Controllable factors (management condition factors)  Uncontrollable factors (job condition factors) Table - 2 Factors affecting output of earth compaction equipments

II. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two case studies were considered to work out the output of vibratory earth compaction. The models of Earth compaction used for Case 1 and case 2 is BW212D–2A Greaves Bomang and L&T 1104 respectively. Collected primary data includes soil type, width graded per pass, average speed of earth compaction, number of passes and job efficiency factor. The details of the earth compaction, job conditions, management conditions and actual productivity of both earth compaction are tabulated in table 3.

Project characteristics Name of project

Estimated cost Name of company Type of work

Table - 3 Computation of output for Earth compaction equipment Case Study – 1 Bagodara – limbadi four Lane high way project (NH 8A), nr. Bagodara Rs. 11 crore (10 Km) Rao Con’n company Layer earth compaction for bridge approach 30000m3 (one approach) BW212D–2A,Greaves Bomang (pneumatic tired Vibratory earth compaction) 2.4 m 1.5 m 10176 kg

Case Study - 2 Rajkot- chotila 4 lane highway project (NH 8A/8B) Rs. 23 crores (22 Km) Sadbhav Eng. ltd.

Earth compaction of Sub Grade Layer (200 mm) 70180 m3( Sub grade) L&T 1104 (Pneumatic tired Vibratory earth compaction) 2.15 m 1.5 m 10430 Kg

Total earth quantity Type of earth compaction Drum width Drum dia.

Operating wt.

Job & Management conditions :10 / 24 hrs (one shift) 10 / 24 hrs (One shift) - working hours / day clay (sticky) fine gravel - type of soil 3 yrs 6 yrs - age of equipment 5 yrs 5 yrs - operator’s experience Job dimensions :100 m 180 m - Length 16 m 12 m - Width 0.20 m 0.20 m - Layer thickness 4 km / hr 3.8 km / hr - Av. Speed of earth compaction 2 Output of earth compaction :- Output q (m / hr) = CXWXSX1000 / P (According to S.C.Sharma ) C = eff. Factor 0.7 (Good operating condition) 0.7 (good operating condition) 2.4 m 2.15 m W = drum width 4 km / hr 3.8 Km / hr S = av. Speed 7 6 P = No. of passes =0.7 x 2.40 x 4.0 x 1000 / 7 0.7 x 2.15 x 3.8 x 1000 / 6

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

90

Case Study on Output/Productivity of Pneumatic Tired Vibratory Roller (Earth Compaction Equipment) under Different Job and Management Conditions (IJSTE/ Volume 3 / Issue 04 / 015)

Output q Volumetric capacity Q m3/hr = q x t Where t = layer thickness

= 960 m2 / hr.

= 953 m2 / hr

= 960 x 0.20 = 192 m3 / hr 0.20 m

= 953x 0.20 =190m3 /hr 0.20 m

III. FINDINGS FROM CASE STUDIES 1) Considering of Case 1 and 2, it has been observed that Hourly output of earth compaction of case-2 (953.16 m2 /hr) is slightly less as compared to output of case-1(960 m2/hr).

2) 2. Operating conditions on both the site were better, therefore Job efficiency factor in both cases is taken 0.7 (Good operating condition) for calculation of productivity of roller.

3) Width compacted per pass in case-2 is less as compared case-1. Roller efficiency is inversely proportional to the number of passes made. Every additional pass increases the time and cost of the job.

4) Age of the equipment in case-1 is 3 years, while in case-2 it is 6 years. Newly equipment produce high output as compared to older one because of less maintenance problems.

IV. CONCLUSION From the case studies, it has been realized that the Output of earth compaction depends on various job conditions and management conditions. Job length, working space, soil condition are Main factors which affect the output of grading equipments. The ratings given in the manufacturer’s catalogues represents optimum figures under ideal conditions which can rarely be realized at site. It will have to be multiplied by a utilization factors which may vary depending on normal working site conditions.

Output of grading equipment is an important basis for its selection to do an operation as well as also for economic analysis and replacement decision.

Disclaimer This is a pure academic research with no intention to promote or discourage any brand of construction equipments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to my guide Prof. J.J.Bhavsar (Civil Engg. department, BVM Engg. College, V.V.nagar) for his intellectual guidance and valuable suggestions and Prof. Balasubramanian D. Iyer (course co-ordinator, ISTAR,V.V.nagar) for his motivation and keen interest.

REFERENCES K.K.Chitakara, ‘Construction Project Management’, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.

R.L. peurifoy and W.B. Ladbetter ,’ Construction planning equipment & methods’, Mc Graw Hill book company, forth edition.

S.C. Sharma, ‘Construction equipment and its management’ khanna publishers, Delhi, third edition Dr. Debasis Sarkar and Deep Shah , ‘A framework for application od genetic Algorithm in productivity optimization of Highway Equipments using EVOLVER software’ European International Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 2 No.5, 2013 [5] Dr. Zoltán A.Vattai and József Károly, ‘Construction Equipment Earthwork & Soil Compaction’ Budapest, 2009-2010 [6] Journal , ‘Civil engineering & construction review’ [7] Frank Harris ‘construction plant’, 1981, Garland STPM Press, ‘New York’.

[8] Field Manual 5-434, ‘Earthmoving Operations’ Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 JUNE 2000.

[9] David A. Day, Neal B. H. Benjamin, ‘Construction Equipment Guide’ John Wiley & Sons [10] Dr. Ali Maher and Dr. Nenad Gucunski, ‘IRC:SP:97-2013 , ‘Guidelines On Compaction Equipment For Road Works’, November 1998 [11] Shashi K. Gulhati, Manoj Datta, ‘Geotechnical engineering’ , Tata McGraw-Hill, 2005.

[1] [2] [3] [4]

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

91