Ole Jonny Klakegg, Kari Hovin Kjlle,

Cecilie G. Mehaug, Nils O.E. Olsson,

Asmamaw T. Shiferaw, Ruth Woods
(editors)

PROCEEDINGS FROM

7TH NORDIC CONFERENCE ON

CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS
AND ORGANISATION 2013
GREEN URBANISATION
IMPLICATIONS FOR VALUE CREATION

TRONDHEIM
1214 JUNE 2013

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation

Trondheim

June 12-14, 2013

Editorial Board
Ole Jonny Klakegg, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Kalle Khknen, Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Gran Lindahl, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Suvi Nenonen, The Aalto University School of Science and Technology,
Kim Haugblle, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, Denmark
Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University,
Denmark
Kristian Widn, Lund University, Sweden
Christian L. Thuesen, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Kari Hovin Kjlle, Sintef Byggforsk, Norway

 Construction Researchers on Economics and Organisation in the Nordic region (CREON)

& Akademika Publishing, 2013
ISBN 978-82-321-0273-0 (online publishing)
This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means; electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical,
photo-copying, recording or otherwise, without permission.
Layout:
Cover: Ole Tolstad
Foreword, introduction and paper template: The editors

Akademika Publishing
NO7005 Trondheim,
Norway
Tel.: + 47 73 59 32 10
www.akademikaforlag.no
Publishing Editor: Lasse Postmyr (lasse.postmyr@akademika.no)

We wish to thank the following for their contributions to the conference.

Scientific Committee
Amund Bruland
Anandasivakumar Ekambaram
Anders Bjrnfot
Anita Moum
Anne Katrine Larssen
Anne Live Vaagaasar
Antje Junghans
Aoife A.M.H. Wiberg
Asmamaw T. Shiferaw
Begum Sertyesilisik
Birgit Cold
Bjrn Andersen
Bjrn Petter Jelle
Brge Aadland
Chris Harty
Debby Goedknegt
Eli Sta

Kirsten Jrgensen
Knut Boge
Kristian Widen
Lena Bygballe
Linda C. Hald
Marit Stre Valen
Mats Persson
Matthias Haase
Mette Bye
Natalie Labonnote
Nils Olsson
Ola Ldre
Ole Jonny Klakegg
Ole Morten Magnussen
Per Anker Jensen
Per-Erik Josephson
Peter Love
Poorang Piroozfar
Pouriya Parsanezahad
Ricardo Dornelas
Rolee Aranya
Rolf Andr Bohne
Ruth Woods
Siri H. Blakstad
Stefan Gottlieb
Stefan Olander
Suvi Nenonen
Sren Wandahl
Thomas Berker
Tommy Kleiven
Tore Haavaldsen
Wenting Chen
ystein Husefest Meland

Erling Holden
Eva Amdahl Seim
Geir K. Hansen
Georgio Locatelli
Gunnar Lucko
Hans Lind
Hans Petter Krane
Hedley Smyth
Helena Johnsson
Ibrahim Yitmen
Inge Hoff
James Odeck
Jan Alexander Langlo
Jarrko Erikshammar
Johan Nystrm
Kim Haugblle
i

Editorial Board
Ole Jonny Klakegg, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Kalle Khknen, Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Gran Lindahl, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Suvi Nenonen, The Aalto University School of Science and Technology,
Kim Haugblle, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, Denmark
Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, Denmark
Kristian Widn, Lund University, Sweden
Christian L. Thuesen, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Kari Hovin Kjlle, SINTEF Byggforsk, Norway
Editors
Ole Jonny Klakegg, NTNU
Kari Hovin Kjlle, SINTEF
Cecilie G. Mehaug, NTNU
Nils O.E. Olsson, NTNU
Asmamaw T. Shiferaw, NTNU
Ruth Woods, SINTEF
Organising Committee
Ole Jonny Klakegg, NTNU
Kari Hovin Kjlle, SINTEF
Cecilie G. Mehaug, NTNU
Nils O.E. Olsson, NTNU
Asmamaw T. Shiferaw, NTNU
Ruth Woods, SINTEF
Pangiota Kostara, NTNU
Program Committee
Petter Eiken, Bygg21
ivind Christoffersen, Statsbygg
Kim Robert Lys, Skanska
Christian Joys, Avantor
Bjrn Sund, Advansia
Morten Lie, Direktoratet for byggkvalitet
Terje Bygland Nikolaisen, Cowi

ii

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation,

Trondheim 12.-14. June 2013
FOREWORD
The first Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation was held in
Gothenburg at Chalmers University of Technology back in 1999. Since then, the
conference has been held biannually (with the exception of 2005) in Sweden (4 times), on
Iceland and in Denmark. Now it is Norway's turn to host the conference, and Finland is
scheduled to take over the baton next time. We are very pleased to be carrying on the
tradition, and we hope to live up to the expectations created by previous conferences.
In 2011 in Copenhagen an initiative was taken that marked a shift in the organization of this
series of Nordic conferences: CREON was founded. The first general assembly was held
during the 6th Nordic conference. The CREON network is a voluntary, non-profit association
for people who study, work, teach and do research about all aspects of management and
construction. The CREON network aims to promote collaboration across Nordic knowledge
institutions and this series of conferences is an important activity for CREON. NTNU and
SINTEF, as local organizers, are proud to present the 7th Nordic conference on behalf of
CREON.
We, the organizers, had two specific ambitions when we started preparing for this conference:
Firstly, we wanted this conference to be acknowledged as a high quality academic conference.
We have therefore put a lot of effort in the review process. Three rounds of blind reviews is a
lot of work, but now when we see the result it was worth it. The close collaboration with
Akademika Publishing makes sure publication points can be awarded to the authors. The
papers are presented in two parallel sessions over three days here at the NTNU Glshaugen
campus.
Secondly, we wanted to establish a closer connection with the construction industry. We
therefore put together a very strong Program Committee, comprising of prominent
representatives from the Norwegian Construction Industry, who identified the main topic:
Green Urbanization Implications for Value Creation. We realized that it was not realistic to
turn an academic conference into a popular construction industry event, so we have chosen to
collaborate with NTNU in marking their new initiative for improving knowledge about the
building process. Thus the idea for the Building Process Day was born we will spend half a
conference day together with distinguished guests from the Norwegian construction industry.
The building process day will also be the scene for another conference innovation: Statsbygg
awards for best paper and best young researcher. Enjoy!
Ole Jonny Klakegg, Kari Hovin Kjlle, Cecilie G. Mehaug , Nils O.E. Olsson, Asmamaw
T. Shiferaw, Ruth Woods (Editors).
iii

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT AND SUMMARY

The construction industry plays an important role in society. Construction forms our
physical surroundings and creates the infrastructure we need to develop society. Physical
infrastructure and buildings represent approximately 70 per cent of Norway's Real Capital.
Public investments in infrastructure constitute half of all infrastructure investments in
Norway. It is also a major factor in the societys economy, representing a substantial share
of the GNP, and, for example, it represents approximately 30% of the employment in
Norway. According to Statistics Norway the construction sector is the third largest industry
in Norway, employing 350,000 workers in more than 75,000 enterprises, and has a high
turnover; over NOK 308 billion in 2011, approximately the same level as 2008 which was a
top year. The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) states that the construction
industry in Norway provides 10% of the total value creation. The construction industry is
truly a cornerstone of our society.
On the other hand the dwellings and construction industry is also mentioned as the 40%
industry by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. This is a
reminder that the construction industry uses approximately 40% of the total energy in our
society, 40% of the materials, and produces about 40% of the waste that goes into landfills.
This indicates the industrys importance in relation to climate and other environmental
challenges. If there is one industry that really can make a difference, it is probably
construction.
Furthermore, the construction industry has a reputation of being conservative, having a low
degree of innovation, and low productivity. It is not known to be the first industry to
implement sustainable solutions. The construction industry does use low-tech solutions and
employ low skilled workers, but it does also include highly advanced New Tech solutions
to technical problems and engage some of the most qualified engineers in our society. The
truth about this industry is as complex as the problems it is trying to solve on behalf of
society.
In the next ten years, growing globalization will promote an already increasing trend of
competition among international construction companies according to The Federation of
Norwegian Construction Industries (BNL). Additionally, Norway has the following
challenges ahead:
Growing population, expected to surpass 7 million by 2060, up from todays 5 million
Increasing trend towards centralisation
Growing elderly population with needs for health care and housing
More pressure on transport infrastructure
An ever increasing immigrant workforce

iv

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

Long cold winters and harsh climate, worsened by climate change which may lead to
more floods, landslides and frequent winter storms
All these challenges will lead to:
High demand for new dwellings
Need for higher investment in low energy buildings
Need for more robust buildings and infrastructure
Need for more investment in transport infrastructure
Need for a larger workforce and recruitment in all sectors
Need for good integration programmes, development of expertise and training in
relevant areas for new migrants and unskilled labour.
These are the sort of challenges that the Program Committee saw when they discussed the
profile for this event back at the beginning of 2011. They called it Green Urbanization. The
situation calls for new solutions, new knowledge, new thinking. Both small steps and huge
leaps help as long as they lead in the right direction. Is the construction industry ready for
it?
The sector is fragmented and contains many small enterprises. Thus, large companies account
for a smaller share of the construction output in Norway than in most other countries. Small
companies with highly specialized competence indicate a fragmented industry. The typical
construction project is also said to be one-of-a-kind at a hectic pace. It is obviously hard to
optimize process and solutions in such an environment.
Although to a lesser degree than other countries, the Norwegian construction industry is
currently facing the challenges that have followed the 2009 financial crisis; small enterprises
lost competence due to temporary redundancy and the investments were at a minimum level.
Therefore, the diffusion of new knowledge and investments was also at a minimum. To what
degree is the construction industry equipped to meet challenges ahead? And to what degree is
the academic community able to help this industry overcome its challenges? These are
questions that deserve to be asked, and perhaps some answers or indications may be found
among the contributions to this conference? Are the academic resources ready for it?
This introduction, its examples and identified challenges are chosen from the Norwegian
context, in full awareness of the current peculiarities of the Norwegian situation. We do have
a special and advantageous position, but Norway is still clearly a distinct part of the Nordic
context. We are also deeply embedded in the bigger international economy and global
community. Therefore, the conference profile and the Nordic conference setting feel highly
relevant in 2013.

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

The contributions span a wide range of issues, organized in three tracks with three major
themes in each:
Sustainable Development of
the Urban Environment

Organizing for Execution

Efficiency in Construction

The Sustainability Perspective

Governance and Strategy

Implementation

The Human Aspect in

Construction

Sustainable Design

Decision Making and Relations

Productivity and Quality

Sustainability and People

Learning from Construction

Projects

Supply Chains and Planning

The first track; Sustainable Development of the Urban Environment is the signature
track of this conference. It relates directly to the challenges addressed by the program
committee back in 2011. The invitation to authors included contributions on sustainability
in a wide sense the concept of sustainability, the framework conditions defined by
government and international agreements, the built environment, both the upgrading of
existing buildings and finding solutions for future built environments. As the papers of this
track shows, the authors cover these issues from several perspectives and cover a wide
range of issues as intended. The track provides a varied and thought provoking approach to
the term "sustainable"; one of the most oft-used terms in the construction industry today,
but which also continues to be one of the most important issues.
Key issues addressed by the papers are; different challenges in combining urbanization and
environment respect, the role and use of green certification systems, the role of
sustainability in project management, passive house building, renovation and retrofitting
from a sustainable perspective and the development of new technology to the deal with
climate and age related problems in building materials. Green has become an important
issue and two papers look at the role of green certification and policy in stimulating
company activity. It can on the one hand, as one paper suggests, become a catalyst,
stimulating more green certified buildings. On the other hand, green may mean, as the
second example shows, following the market rather than focusing on policies which benefit
clients and society. Encouraging a sustainable build is a theme which may be understood as
central in this track; it is present in the aforementioned papers and also plays a role in the
papers which focus on retrofitting, project management and the building of passive houses.
Further issues are exploring the difference between project management success and
project success; analyzing collaborative working and experienced effects on the energy
performance of a building project; an analysis of existing Norwegian retail development
and their impact on local energy consumption; and the effects of user involvement in the
briefing and design of a workplace. Scandinavian and particularly Norwegian examples
vi

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

dominate the papers, but there are also case stories from USA and China and contributions
from the Netherlands and the UK.
The second track; Organizing for Execution represents a combination of new and classic
issues around governance, decision making and learning. It covers issues with a wide
perspective and long-ranging consequences for the organisations involved. Key issues are
governance mechanisms, strategy implementation, decision making, relations and learning.
Several papers discuss aspects of governance and how organisations may implement
processes and structures in order to improve their value creation and value for money in
investments. Examples presented here are the governments in the Netherlands and Norway, as
well as several anonymous companies associated with the construction industry. This has a lot
to do with designing purposeful decision making processes and using the right criteria for
prioritizing and choice of projects. Other perspectives are how to implement necessary
transformations of the organization in a changing environment. This is an important issue in a
world of increasing globalization, competition and new technologies.
One major topic in several papers is the clarity and better understanding of roles and
responsibilities in project organisations and between the project and its mother organization,
as well as other stakeholders. These relational issues include communication, motivation,
emotions and trust, just to mention some important aspects. The most fundamental topic in
these papers is perhaps learning. Learning from cases and accumulating experiences in
organisations in construction has been argued a particularly challenging thing to do. Several
papers look into these challenges.
The types of organisations represented in these papers range from large public agencies, via
industrial companies down to facilities management companies. The projects range
accordingly from large infrastructure investments via large building design and development
processes down to small and medium sized renovation and upgrading projects in existing
buildings. All in all, this track comprises discussions on some of the major issues engaging
the research community on construction projects in recent years. The picture is clearly Nordic
in the sense that most of the cases reported are documented in the Nordic region, but extended
to include Poland, France and the UK.
The third track; Efficiency in construction is the original core area of construction
economics and organisation, internationally perhaps better known as construction
management. It covers both qualitative and quantitative aspects of efficiency in construction.
The majority of the papers address the human aspect in construction, but in different ways.
Innovation, learning, daily life, scheduling, BIM, productivity, quality, procurement, contracts
and supply chains are addressed, among other issues. Roles and interfaces between different
stakeholders in a construction project are addressed in several papers.
Innovation is a key topic. It is addressed both explicitly in some papers, and implicitly in
many more papers. Innovation in the construction sector is an important topic. It is mainly
vii

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

illustrated through cases. The construction sector is characterised by cooperation between

many stakeholders. Design, planning and execution are typically carried out by projectoriented organizations. Deliveries of building components and materials are carried out by
manufacturing companies. Interestingly, we also have comparisons between the construction
sector and other sectors, as well as the use of analytical models used in other industries but
here applied in a construction context.
Contracts and supply chain are addressed in several papers. The contractual relationships in
the construction industry are illustrated, with special focus on incentives and stakeholder
relations. Planning is addressed in a quantitative way, but from different perspectives. We
also have a terminology overview related to planning.
The track includes examples of technology advancement in the construction industry,
including Building Information Modelling (BIM).The track includes BIM approaches in a life
cycle perspective.
Cases and data come from a wide array of countries, and are not limited to the Nordic region.
The research approaches represent an interesting mix of theoretical work in the form of
literature reviews and conceptual papers, development of decision models and understanding
of observed performance in real situations, as well as documenting learning from cases and
demonstration projects. The empirical side is not surprisingly dominated by document studies
and interviews. Several papers are based on case studies. Some papers have a more theoretical
approach, while others are very empirical and data driven. In total these proceedings represent
a good cross section of contemporary research in the field of construction economics and
organization in 2013.

viii

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Track1:SustainableDevelopmentoftheUrbanEnvironment
TheSustainabilityPerspective
GREENORMATURING?"ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITYINMARKETINGANDBUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTAMONGSTCONSTRUCTIONMAJORS
HedlySmyth

INCENTIVESTOCATALYSEGREENBUILDINGCERTIFICATIONSFORBUILDINGCONSTRUCTION
RadhlinahAulin,FilipElland

ESTABLISHINGASTAKEHOLDERFRAMWORKFORECOCITYDEVELOPMENT
WITHACASESTUDYOFCHINESEECOCITY
YaoYao,HansLind,TinaKarrbomGustavsson

THEFIRSTGREATMETROPOLITANPARKOFTHE21STCENTURY:AMANIFESTATIONOF
GREENURBANIZATION
EricR.P.Farr,PoorangPiroozfar

THEROLEOFSHOPPINGCENTRESINTHESUSTAINABLETRANSITIONOFNEIGHBOURHOODS
MatthiasHaase,RuthWoods

GREENPLANNINGCHALLENGESANDOPPORTUNITIESASYSTEMDYNAMICSPERSPECTIVE
PeterHeffron

13

24

36

48

59

SustainableDesign
SUSTAINABILITYEVALUATIONOFRETROFITTINGANDRENOVATIONOFBUILDINGSINEARLY
STAGES
PerAnkerJensen,EsmirMaslesa,NavidGohardani,FolkeBjrk,StratisKanarachos,
ParisA.Fokaides

SUSTAINABLETRANSFORMATIONOFEXISTINGBUILDINGSACASESTUDYOFA
TRANSFORMATIONOFABARNATCAMPHILLROTVOLL
AlisePlavina,MatthiasHaase

PARTNERINGFORTHEDEVELOPMENTOFANENERGYPOSITIVEBUILDING.CASESTUDYOF
POWERHOUSE#1
TorillMeistad

LCAOFNANOCOATEDWOODENCLADDINGSUTILIZINGACCELERATEDAGEINGTEST
RESULTS
SelamawitM.Fufa,BjrnPetterJelle,RolfAndrBohne,CarineGrossrieder

ix

70

81

92

102

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

THEROLEOFACCELERATEDCLIMATEAGEINGOFBUILDINGMATERIALS,COMPONENTSAND
STRUCTURESINTHELABORATORY
BjrnPetterJelle

111

SustainabilityandPeople
ONTHEDIFFERENCEBETWEENPROJECTMANAGEMENTSUCCESSANDPROJECTSUCCESS
HallgrimHjelmbrekke,OlaLdre,JardarLohne

SUSTAINABLELOWCOSTHOUSINGFORTHESOCIALLYDISADVANTAGED:THEVASSNESET
EXAMPLE
RuthWoods,KariHovinKjlle,LarsGullbrekken

RESPONSIBILITYFORADHERINGTOSUSTAINABILITYINPROJECTMANAGEMENT
DebbyGoedknegt

WORKPRACTICEIMPACTONUSERSASSESSMENTOFUSABILITY
SiriHunnesBlakstad,KariHovinKjlle

123

134

145

155

Track2:OrganizingforExecution
GovernanceandStrategyImplementation
PARTNERSHIPSINCOMPLEXPROJECTS:AGENCY,INNOVATIONANDGOVERNANCE
KimHaugblle,FrdricBougrain,MarianneForman,StefanChristofferGottlieb

THENORWEGIANPROJECTGOVERNANCESYSTEM:WEAKNESSESANDIMPROVEMENTS
AsmamawTadegeShiferaw

MANAGINGPUBLICINFRASTRUCTURENETWORKS.ONTHEHORNSOFSEVERALDILEMMAS
WimLeendertse,JosArts

THEDUTCHPROJECTGOVERNANCESYSTEM:WEAKNESSESANDIMPROVEMENTS
AsmamawTadegeShiferaw

ENHANCINGCUSTOMERORIENTATIONINCONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRYBYMEANSOFNEW
PiviJvj,SunilSuwal,JannePorkka,NusratJung

EXPERIMENTALDESIGNSTRATEGYASPARTOFANINNOVATIVECONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY
G.MaartenGjaltema,RogierP.P.Laterveer,RubenVrijhoef

IMPLICATIONSOFSTRATEGYININDUSTRIALIZEDHOUSEBUILDINGALONGITUDINALCASE
STUDY
LouiseBildsten

166

178

191

203

215

227

239

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

IMPLEMENTATIONOFSTRATEGIES:ACASESTUDYOFAMUNICIPALITYOWNEDHOUSING
COMPANY
TobiasAlfljung,EbbaBirging,SigridGunnemark,SaraLindskog,LorenzMcNamara,
GranLindahl,PernillaGluch

BOARDOFDIRECTORSRESPONSIBILITYFORCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS
OleJonnyKlakegg,DavidShannon

247

257

DecisionMakingandRelationships
THENEWCOMMONGROUND:UNDERSTANDINGVALUE
HallgrimHjelmbrekke,OleJonnyKlakegg

FACILITIESMANAGEMENTANDCONSTRUCTIONCONVERGEINARENOVATIONPROJECT
TerttuVainio,VeliMttnen,TimoKauppinen,AnneTolman

USORTHEM?ACASESTUDYOFTWOINTERNALPROJECTTEAMSDURINGCONSTRUCTION
OFANEWCORPORATEHQ
SiriHunnesBlakstad,NilsO.E.Olsson

USEOFCOLLABORATIVEWORKINGINCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTSWITHHIGHENERGY
AMBITIONS
TorillMeistad,MaritStreValen,JardarLohne

THEINTERPLAYOFEMOTIONALINTELLIGENCEANDTRUSTINPROJECTRELATIONSHIPS
NicholasBootHandford,HedleySmyth

MANAGINGSTAKEHOLDERRELATIONSHIPSINPPPPROJECTS
J.Siering,A.Svensson,G.Lindahl

269

282

290

302

314

324

LearningfromProjects
EXPLOITATIONOFEXPLORATORYKNOWLEDGE:AMULTIPLECASESTUDYOFKNOWLEDGE
DIFFUSIONFROMDEMONSTRATIONPROJECTS
AndersVennstrm,PerErikEriksson

WHATHAVEWELEARNEDABOUTTHESOCIALASPECTINLEARNINGINTHECONTEXTOF
CONSTRUCTIONPROJECTSBYNOW?AREVIEWOFTHEEARLIERSTUDIES
AnneKokkonen

LEARNINGINTHEEARLYDESIGNPHASEOFANINFRASTRUCTUREDEVELOPMENTPROJECT
ThereseEriksson

INFORMAL,INCIDENTALNATUREOFKNOWLEDGESHARINGINCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS
AnandasivakumarEkambaram,HansPetterKrane

xi

335

346

357

368

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

Track3:EfficiencyinConstruction
Thehumanaspectinconstruction
EMPLOYEEENGAGEMENTININNOVATIONFORTHEBUILTENVIRONMENT
NatalyaSergeeva

USINGCOMMUNITIESOFPRACTICETOINTEGRATEINDUSTRIALKNOWLEDGEINTO
COOPERATIVERESEARCHONSUSTAINABILITYINSTEELCONSTRUCTION
GregorNuesse,M.Limbachiya,R.Herr

THEDAILYLIFEOFACONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTORMULTIPLICITYINPRODUCTION
STRATEGIES
HelenaJohnsson

BOUNDARYSPANNINGINCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS:TOWARDSAMODELFORMANAGING
EFFICIENTCOLLABORATION
TinaKarrbomGustavsson

ASSESSINGCONSTRUCTIONENDUSERVALUES
AndersBjrnfot,LeifErikStorm,EskildNarumBakken

OPENINNOVATIONINPROJECTBASEDINDUSTRIES:THECASEOFANOPENINNOVATION
PROJECTINCONSTRUCTION
MarianneForman,KimHaugblle

MANAGINGEXPLORATIONANDEXPLOITATIONINCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS
PerErikEriksson,HenrikSzentes

379

390

404

415

427

440

451

Productivityandquality
AHOLISTICAPPROACHTOACQUISITIONOFBUILDINGINFORMATIONFORAMORE
EFFICIENTCOLLABORATION
PouriyaParsanezhad,VinoTarandi

CHALLENGESINENGAGINGTHECLIENTDURINGTHECAPTURE,TRANSLATION,
TRANSFORMATIONANDDELIVERY(CTTD)OFCLIENTREQUIREMENTS(CR)WITHIN
THEBUILDINGINFORMATIONMODELLING(BIM)ENVIRONMENT
FaraAtiquahShahrin,EricJohansen

IMPROVINGINTERORGANIZATIONALDESIGNPRACTICESINTHEWOODBASEDBUILDING
INDUSTRY
ChristophMerschbrock,B.E.Munkvold

LOSSANDPRODUCTIVITYINPERFORMANCEOFCONCRETESTRUCTURE:ACASESTUDY
AlbertoCasadoLordsleemJr.,FbiaKamillyAndrade,SuenneCorreiaPinho

xii

461

469

479

490

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

PROGRAMOFPERFORMANCEINDICATORSFORCEMENTBASEDTECHNOLOGY
CONSTRUCTION
AlbertoCasadoLordsleemJr.,SuenneAndressaCorreiaPinho

QUALITYPROGRESSMODELFORBUILDINGCONSTRUCTION

JussiM.Savolainen,KalleE.Khknen

501

512

Supplychainsandplanning
CHARACTERISTICSOFSUPPLYCHAINMANAGEMENTINSYSTEMSBUILDINGAND
IMPLICATIONSFORSMALLBUSINESS
JarkkoErikshammar

INCENTIVEBASEDPROCUREMENTINCONSTRUCTIONPARTNERING
EmilioJohansson,Robertgren,StefanOlander

AWAYTOEMPIRICALLYDEFINECONTRACTINGFORMSINCONSTRUCTION
JohanNystrm

COORDINATEDSUPPLYCHAINPLANNINGINCONSTRUCTION
MicaelThunberg,FredrikPersson,MartinRudberg

SINGULARITYFUNCTIONSFORINTEGRATINGTEMPORALANDFINANCIALCONSTRAINT
MODELOFCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS
GunnarLucko,RichardC.Thompson

TOWARDSATAXONOMYOFPLANNINGANDSCHEDULINGMETHODSINTHECONTEXTOF
CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT
HammadAlNasseri,KristianWidn,RadhlinahAulin

ADDRESSINGTHEDUEDATEDELIVERYPROBLEMOFDESIGNINCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS
KaiHaakonKristensen,BjrnAndersen,OlavTorp

xiii

520

530

539

546

557

570

582

7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 2013

LOSS AND PRODUCTIVITY IN PERFORMANCE OF CONCRETE

STRUCTURE: A CASE STUDY

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho
University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
e-mail: acasado@poli.br
e-mail: fabiakamilly@hotmail.com
e-mail: suenne_correia@hotmail.com

Abstract. The increased competitiveness in the Brazilian construction industry has validated the
need for construction companies to seek improvement in the management of its processes. The
knowledge about the actual performance feedback is critical to the production system in order to fix
bugs; many of them related to the waste of materials and workmanship. Within this context, this paper
analyzes and discusses both the material loss occurred on the concreting structure process and the
productivity of the manpower involved in the execution on site. To obtain indicators were collecting
data, whose methodology included a survey of theoretical volume of concrete and concreting of time,
divided into concrete beams and slabs and concrete pillars. Among the results, there is a variation of
loss between 3,46% and 42,16%, while the productivity indicators, results have been between
1,82Mh/m3 and 12,44Mh/m3. It could be seen both as loss and productivity, the results were
discrepant, demonstrating the potential for rationalization on site.
KEYWORDS: Performance indicators; Concrete; Loss; Productivity; Benchmarking.
1 INTRODUCTION
Concrete represents today one of the most widely used materials in construction for the
composition of structures, whether they are reinforced, prestressed or mixed. It is estimated
that annually 11 billion tons of concrete are consumed, generating approximately an average
consumption of 1.9 tons of concrete per inhabitant per year, a value inferior only to water
consumption. In Brazil, ready mixed concrete that comes out of the batching plants is of
approximately 30 million cubic meters (Pedroso, 2009).
However, concrete also became the second largest representative in construction and
demolition waste (CDW), corresponding to 21.2% of the mineral fraction of rubble, which
corresponds to values between 75% and 90% of the total debris generated. The percentage of
concrete in the mineral fraction is only behind mortars (Zordan, 1997).
Besides the rubble, loss of concrete can also be presented in an incorporated form - that is,
when present in the structure, but in quantity superior to that requested in the project resulting in additional costs, overweight in the structure and interference in the performance
of other activities, such as the finishing, for example (Souza, 2005).
Both losses in the form or in the incorporated form are closely related to labor
productivity, as the concrete directly depends on the execution time of the concreting service
to ensure its workability. Carraro et al. (1997) state that "labor has become the true barrier to
the construction industry, whose expenses are significant and its control, one of the most
arduous of tasks."

490

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

Therefore, the management system of the Brazilian construction companies has adhered to
the use of performance indicators - quantitative expressions of the behavior of the process or
product - as a tool for analysis and intervention of processes, aiming optimization.
Lordsleem Jr. et al. (2011) states that the indicators promote knowledge of corporate
performance and, when inserted in a collaborative process, with the identification of
benchmarking, provide results between companies and the knowledge of the best practices.
In this context, this paper analyzes and discusses both the material loss occurred on the
concreting structure process and the productivity of the manpower involved in the execution
on site. The benchmarking research was carried out with 03 building construction companies,
whose methodology included a survey of theoretical volume of concrete and concreting of
time, divided into concrete beams and slabs and concrete pillars.
The indicators selected are included in the Program of Performance Indicators
(PROGRIDE) - which consists of a performance indicators system for construction
technologies based on cement - coordinated by the Brazilian Association of Portland Cement
(ABCP) and idealized by the POLITECH research group (Management and Technology for
Building Construction) of the Polytechnic University of Pernambuco.
Following, both the losses of concrete as well as the productivity of labor in the service of
concreting are presented and discussed, from the calculation methodology until
implementation and identification of their influencing factors from the benchmarking process
in the monitored companies.
2 LOSS AND PRODUCTIVITY IN THE CONCRETING SERVICE
Souza (1996) conceptualizes concreting as "service which essentially consists in the
placing of concrete over the form, in the vibration to obtain adensation, in the leveling and
surface finishing, in the case of slabs".
This service represents the final stage for producing the reinforced concrete structure and
is generally the most important phase. The mistakes made at this stage imply in large future
losses, among which pathologies, overconsumption in the finishing and rework. Dantas
(2006) affirms that "the success of the service can influence the others, as it is closely linked
to the execution sequence of the structure, which may interfere in the cycle as a whole".
Arajo (2000) argues that the executors of this service are internal suppliers from
innumerous clients regarding other services that compose the work of constructing a building.
Therefore, this step of the execution should only be allowed after checking the services
that precede it, which are: the service of moulds (cleaning and applied demoldant),
framework (positioning) and built-in facilities (eg, placement of bengals). Also, the
availability of all equipment and tools required to perform this service should be checked
beforehand.
Souza (2005) defines loss as "any amount of material consumed beyond the amount
theoretically required, which is indicated in the project and its memorials, or other
prescriptions from the executor, for the product being carried out".
Pinho (2010) justifies the loss mainly by the deficiency in project planning execution for
production and in the monitoring of the service, which contributes to the adoption of less
rational practices, for example, the over-consumption of materials, labor, work and time.
Despite the losses being inherent in any construction process, it is up for the industry
professionals to understand them both quantitatively as qualitatively in order to subsidize
minimization strategies (Souza, 2005).
Productivity is conceptualized as the relation between inputs and outputs of the considered
process, being today one of the most difficult resources to manage. In his work, Arajo
(2000) highlights the importance of measuring productivity in times of intense competition
between construction companies, namely: prediction of labor consumption, prediction of the
491

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

duration of services, evaluation and comparison of results through the process of

benchmarking and improvement of construction methods.
Measuring productivity means having parameters that may delineate corrective measures
in the process, in order to achieve economic and production growth and related from
industrial and business prospects (Jang et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011).
It is also possible to relate the productivity indicator to the indicator of wastes. Souza
(2005) cites material productivity when he defines productivity as the efficiency of certain
amount of effort to obtain certain results. Therefore, productivity of materials would be the
effort required of materials to complete a service unit.
On the other hand, the productivity of labor would also result in gains in efficiency of
materials when it comes to the service of concreting, since the material used - concrete has
its workability directly related to the duration of the service. Therefore, productivity is
closely related to losses in the considered process.
3 METHODOLOGY
This study followed 180 hours of service from 03 construction companies, whose
concretings were divided into 04 pillars concretings and four beam concretings, slabs and
pillar complements, for each monitored company.
The pavement considered was the multi storey floor due to the possibility of
implementation of strategies for further improvements in others floors. The contemplated
concrete was industrialized due to the adoption of this predominant component by building
companies located in the city of Recife, state of Pernambuco, in northeastern Brazil.
In this study we considered the loss of concrete for the following situations: 1) actual
consumption of concrete superior to what is necessary to concrete the elements considered,
i.e., surplus materials generally used for filling floors, sidewalks, among others; 2) actual
consumption of concrete that has begun the fixing time during concreting and returned to
concrete industry; 3) the concrete-mixing truck which has not passed the test of cone slump
and, consequently, returned to concrete manufacturer without downloading will not be
considered as loss; 4) actual consumption of concrete used in other elements not considered
in research, for example, stairs, walls and retained concrete in pipes (return) were considered
losses as long as there was no theoretical deduction of the theoretical consumption of these
elements in actual consumption of concrete.
Initially, a study of the quantitative theory of concrete was performed - based on the
design of molds - the structural elements of beams, slab, pillar complement and pillar,
including also the stairs element, proceeding with the collection of field data and calculation
of indicators. Such scaling is essential to the methodology for calculating indicators of
productivity and loss, which can be found in other works, eg Arajo (2000), Souza (2000)
and Dantas (2006).
It is worth noting that the stairs element was contemplated only for possible discounts in
the amount of real concrete and in time of concreting, considering that, being this element
concreted along with the structural elements, its consumption of concrete can be considered
as loss and its time of concreting may negatively impact the productivity index.
3.1 Calculation of real concrete loss
The methodology for calculating this indicator was divided into two stages:
1) assessment of the theoretical consumption of concrete (CT): consists in the
dimensioning of structural elements based on the design of molds and subsequent calculation
of volumes. It is the quantification of the service in m3, already mentioned in the previous
topic;

492

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

2) assessment of actual consumption of concrete (CR): consists in the sum of the volumes
of industrialized concrete mixing trucks in m3.
The percentage of losses is given by the formula below:

P(%)

C R CT
100
CT

(1)

There are references that adopt loss percentage relating to real consumption, but not
adopting it in this work is due to the fact that construction companies perform the service of
concreting according to the project and not on the volume of concrete of the trucks.
The theoretical approach was based on the quantification of the service, using
spreadsheets, whose volume was automatically generated after the inputting the data, as
shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.
3

SPREADSHEET 3 QUANTITY OF PILLAR COMPLEMENT CONCRETING SERVICE (m )

Service: Reinforced concrete structure (Pillar) Losses
Date of collection obtained at the plant.
TRANSVERSAL SECTION

Nr. of
concreted
Pillar / Nr. of
pavement

Width of
Base (m)

Length of
Base (m)

Height of
Pillar (m)*

Volume of Pillar
Concrete (m3)

CP4
CP7

0.27
0.27

1.20
1.20

0.70
0.70

0.23
0.23

Rectangular

Circular
Height of
Pillar (m)*

Volume of Pillar
Concrete (m3)

Volume of Circular
Pillar Concrete

0,46

Volume of Rectangular Pillar Concrete

QtSPCC

Diameter
(m)

0.00

QtSPCC = Quantity of Total Service Pillar Complement Concreting

2,82

Figure 1: Example of pillar complement QS spreadsheet

It is observed in Figure 1, an example of detailed calculation of the volume of pillar

complement, while in the example of Figure 2, it is found that the slab of the building was of
the raft type, and its quantification provided by the designer.
3

SPREADSHEET 5 QUANTITY OF SERVICE OF SLAB CONCRETING (m )

Service: Reinforced concrete structure (Slab) Losses
RAFT SLAB
Volume of Concrete (m3) =
22.25
Obs. For the raft slab, the volume o concrete must be supplied in the structural project.

SOLID SLAB
IDENTIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL
ELEMENT NR./PAVEMENT NR.

QtSSC

Section
Width (m)

Length (m)

Depth (m)

Encounter area
with Pillars (m2)*

Volume of
Concrete (m3)**

QtSSC = Quantity of Total Service of Slab Concreting

Figure 2: Example of spreadsheet for QS for slab

3

SPREADSHEET 4 QUANTITY OF SERVICE OF BEAM CONCRETING (m )

Service: Reinforced Concrete Structure (Beam) Losses
IDENTIFICATION OF
STRUCURAL ELEMENT
NR./PAVEMENT NR.
V1a
V1b
V2
V3a
V3b
V4
V5
QtSBC

3,17

Section
Width (m)

Length (m)*

Height (m)

0.14
4.71
0.70
0.14
3.62
0.70
0.20
6.63
0.70
0.14
5.95
0.70
0.14
1.50
0.70
0.14
3.62
0.60
0.14
4.71
0.60
QtSBC = Quantity of Total Service of Beam Concreting

Figure 3: Example of spreadsheet of QS of beam

493

Volume of
Concrete (m3)**
0.46
0.35
0.93
0.58
0.15
0.30
0.40

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

From the data provided in the examples of Figures 1, 2 and 3, the accounting of the
theoretical consumption of concrete can be verified, being 35.3 m3. The total volume of
concrete required is accounted from the volume originated from the delivery trucks, whose
example was of 40 m3. It is worth noting that although the entire stairs has been concreted,
this must be deducted from the actual consumption of the concrete from beam elements, slab
and pillar complement in order to avoid it being considered as a loss.
3.2 Calculation of the labor productivity
The productivity of labor was measured by the methodology of calculation of the Unitary
Production Reason (UPR), which is the ratio between the number of Men-hour (Mh) and the
quantity of service (QS). This can still be given by the ratio between the quantitative of the
team and speed of concreting (Arajo, 2000).
UPR

M h Mh h
M
Team

QS
QS h QS / h Concreting Speed

(2)

Depending on the time to be considered, Unitary Production Reason (UPR) can be

classified into UPRtruck, and UPRunload UPRglobal, as shown in Figure 4. According to the
diagram it is concluded that the total number of hours (h) used in Equation 2 to calculate the
UPRtruck is the median of times from beginning to unload of each truck. As for the
UPRunload, total hours (h) is the time between the completion of the last truck and the
beginning of the first one, considering the intervals between trucks.

Figure 4: Concreting times (Arajo, 2000)

For UPRglobal, total hours (h) is the time between the beginning and the end of personnel
availability.
The quantity of service (QS) also differentiates UPRs, being the amount considered in
actual service and quantity of service UPRtruck and the quantity of theoretical service
considered in the UPRunload and UPRglobal. Figure 5 illustrates the spreadsheet used in
field data collection and Figure 6 illustrates the UPR methodology calculation.
SPREADSHEET 1 CONCRETE-MIXING TRUCKS USED FOR PAVEMENT CONCRETING
Service: Reinforced concrete structure Concreting Productivity

1
2
3
4
5

8
8
8
8
5

40
40
40
40
40

19
19
19
19
19

12
10.5
11.5
12
11.5

8:39
9:43
12:27
12:55
13:42

9:34
10:34
12:43
14:13
14:51

10:50
11:22
13:04
14:20
15:24

19h/9

Anormalities

11:13
11:44
13:35
14:58
15:36

10
8
10
10
10

Six trucks were insufficient to concrete all the

slab, lacking volume equivalent to 6 gourds.
1st truck concreted part of the stairs
Time of stairs = 10:50 11:05
Time of lunch: 50 min

Figure 5: Example of spreadsheet for field data collection

494

Beam + slab
7h/10

Direct
team

Sweeping

Concreted Part:
Beginning of availability/available
team:
End of availability/available team:

End
unloading

Finishing of slab:

Beginning
unload
(Beginning of
conceting)

11.2

Arrival at
site

Height:

Exit from
industry

2.95

Slump

H floor to floor:

Gravel

sunny - rainy

3rd pavement

Fck

Weather:

Portion of work:

Volume

Concrete-mixer

Truck

Truck:

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

Figure 6: Example of spreadsheet of UPRs calculation

It is observed in Figures 5 and 6, the need for field monitoring of recorded information,
whereby it is possible to perform the calculation of the velocities of concreting and therefore,
of UPRtruck, UPRunload and UPRglobal.
4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
All of the 3 sites monitored (A, B and C) are described in Table 1 in order to present the
main features of each of them, as well as the reality monitored.
Table 1: Characterization of sites monitored
Characteristics
Function
Nr. Towers
Nr. Floors
Reference usable area
Constructive process

Site A
Site B
Site C
residential
residential
residential
1
1
1
17
13
23
172.17 m2
154.1 m2
145 m2
Reinforced concrete structure (wooden molds) and partitions with ceramic bricks

The weekly concreting results obtained at the monitored buildings are presented in Tables
2 and 3, as well as the minimum (Min), maximum (Max), median (Med) and benchmarking
(Bench) values in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 2: Results of weekly beam, slab and pillar complement
Indicator
Loss (%)
UPRtruck (Mh/m3)
UPRunload (Mh/m3)
UPRglobal (Mh/m3)

6.97
0.60
1.54
3.09

Beam, Slab and Pillar Complement

Site A
Site B
14.99 14.00 15.15 7.27 7.27 4.66 4.66
0.54 0.65 0.62 0.66 0.52 0.29 0.21
1.12 1.28 0.91 0.82 1.27 0.77 1.01
3.13 3.01 2.43 2.44 2.34 1.65 1.91

3.46
0.52
1.15
1.82

Site C
11.92
0.74
1.77
2.37

Table 3: Results of weekly pillar

Pillar

Indicator
Loss (%)
UPRtruck (Mh/m3)
UPRunload (Mh/m3)
UPRglobal (Mh/m3)

7.80
0.54
0.58
4.04

Site A
42.16 17.03
3.61
1.91
3.95
1.83
12.44 5.73

7.21
0.84
0.85
3.02

25.21
0.58
0.61
3.48

10.91
1.03
1.56
4.70

Site B
4.30
0.88
1.05
4.06

4.30
0.95
0.83
3.67

Table 4: Results of beam, slab and pillar complement

Indicator

Beam, Slab and Pillar Complement

495

3.81
1.18
1.85
3.67

Site C
15.93
1.21
1.03
2.79

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

Loss (%)
UPRtruck (Mh/m3)
UPRunload (Mh/m3)
UPRglobal (Mh/m3)

Min
6.97
0.54
0.91
2.43

Site A
Med
Max
14.5
15.15
0.61
0.65
1.20
1.54
3.05
3.13

Min
4.66
0.21
0.77
1.65

Site B
Med
5.97
0.41
0.92
2.13

Max
7.27
0.66
1.27
2.44

Min
3.46
0.52
1.15
1.82

Site C
Med
Max
7.69 11.92
0.63
0.74
1.46
1.77
2.10
2.37

Min
3.81
1.18
1.03
2.79

Site C
Med
Max
9.87 15.93
1.20
1.21
1.44
1.85
3.23
3.67

Bench
3.46
0.52
1.15
1.82

Table 5: Results of pillar

Indicator
Loss (%)
UPRtruck (Mh/m3)
UPRunload (Mh/m3)
UPRglobal (Mh/m3)

Min
7.21
0.54
0.58
3.02

Site A
Med
12.42
1.38
1.34
4.89

Max
42.16
3.61
3.95
12.44

Min
4.30
0.58
0.61
3.48

Pillar
Site B
Med Max
7.61 25.21
0.92
1.03
0.94
1.56
3.87
4.70

Bench
3.81
1.18
1.03
2.79

Through the results shown in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5, it is verified that productivity variations
of the monitored buildings possess values inside the reality of Brazilian civil construction for
the elements of the beam and slab, since TCPO (2008) recommends values between 0.6 and
4.23 Mh/m3 UPRglobal for these elements.
The TCPB - Table of Composition of Prices for Budgets - corresponds to the largest
credible database in the Brazilian Civil Construction Industry. Its functionality consists in
guiding and referencing the elaboration of budgets of construction and civil works. Therefore,
for values of pillar UPRglobal, TCPO (2008) recommends values between 0.70 and 5.13
Mh/m3, which indicates high UPR's of service of pillar concreting in site A. Taking into
consideration the variations in losses of builders monitored and that the TCPO (2008)
recommends percentage equivalent to 5%, it appears that work A is distant from this
reference due to the alternance of results and sites B and C approached it making
interventions at each concreting.
In Table 3, there is a percentage close to 50% characteristic of work A and is due to the
change in the transport system of concrete because the bombing truck was not delivered by
the industry on that day. The system went from not decomposed, using a stationary pump to
decomposed with the use of wheelbarrows, hoist and scaffolding, thereby increasing the
concreting phases and the possibilities of wastes.
Analyzing some of the influencing factors of the productivity indicator, it is shown that
labor of builders A and C was entirely from their own teams, but only in the first team, the
carpentry and framing teams offered support for the concreting service. As for building
company B, part of the personnel belonged to its own staff - and this part did not have
support from the carpentry and framing teams in the service - and the other part was
outsourced, being responsible for assembling moulds and finishing work in concrete slabs,
beams and pillar complements, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Influencing factors of the productivity indicator
Item
Median of direct concreting service team
Total volume of slab, beam and pillar complement
Total volume of pillars
Characterization of the direct team of concreting service
Team of carpentry service
Predicted period of concreting
Access from hose to stairs

496

Builder A
11
35.55 m3
9.23 m3
proper
proper
morning
easy

Builder B
8
38.19m3
7.75 m3
Proper/outsourced
outsourced
afternoon
difficult

Builder C
11
61.31 m3
14.61 m3
proper
outsourced
morning
easy

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

Therefore, it is concluded that the segregation of teams as to functionality, favored the

teams productivity, offering greater flexibility to the process. Thus, it reduced the percentage
of losses, since concrete depends on the time of the implementation of service to ensure
workability. The predicted period of the beginning of concreting was also an influencing
factor, because in the morning time, the concrete industry was more requested from other
works, generating delays.
Another parameter found in the study, influencing the results, is due to difficulty of access
from the hose to the stairs, specifically for the project B, which also contributed to high levels
of waste and productivity loss. Despite the stairs element is not contemplated in this work, its
placement hindered access to certain pillars. In this case, the architecture design did not
consider the execution of the service and thus the losses were greater in this site.
On site B, analyzing the factors influencing the waste of material, inadequacy in the
placement and sealing of clamps was found, besides little control in the thickness of the slab.
However, after analysis of the research team and confirmation by the work managers,
company B sought improvements inserting metal masters to control the thickness of the slab
and a better monitoring of the mold service.
On site C, inadequate checking in equipments to be used was found, such as easels that did
not support the hose or too narrow for its passage, with some time being destined to fix these
problems with the mixing truck waiting to discharge the concrete.
Therefore, through these experienced situations, the performance of the indicators used to
characterize the service of concreting are relevant, showing the discrepancies of the same
service for different days, besides subsidizing the identification of influencing factors,
generating savings in time and cost of skilled labor and material.
5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
The findings of this research should only be compared with other studies that have the
same methodological basis, as discussed in section 3. There are some reference studies,
performed mainly in Brazil, which allow the comparison of results, as presented following.
5.1 Concrete loss
In the case of concrete loss, Figure 7 shows the findings of the three sites included in this
study, compared to four previous studies.
Throughout the findings presented in Figure 7, it is found that the results are worse in the
site A from the data set, displaying the highest values for minimum, median and maximum.
However, the results of sites B and C are more satisfactory, with medians below those
cited by Paliari et al. (2002) and TCPO (2008). The maximum value found in the site C
(15.9%) is the lowest among the previous studies (19.39% to 33.0%), exceeding only the
maximum (10%) reported by Al-Moghany (2006).

497

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

Figure 7: Comparison of concrete loss with previous studies

With respect to benchmarking, it is noticed that the values achieved by 03 sites from this
research are likely to improve, since there are over 04 studies of benchmarking reference.
5.2 Productivity of pillar
The productivity of labor allowed the comparison with 04 reference studies, according to
Figure 8.

Figure 8: Productivity of pillar comparison with previous studies

Through Figure 8, it is possible to identify that the site A had the highest value of the data
set and all results throughout this study are higher than those presented by previous studies. It
shows a possibility of improvement.
5.3 Productivity of beam, slab and pillar complement
The findings of beam, slab and pillars complement productivity allowed the comparison
with the results of four reference studies, as shown in Figure 9.

498

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

Figure 9: Productivity of beam, slab and pillar complement comparison with previous studies

Unlike reality found in concrete pillars productivity, the results were most satisfactory,
being inserted into the reality of the data pointed to by the other studies. It was also found
that the sites A, B and C have smaller ranges of variation with less discrepant results.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to present the importance of measuring the indicators of loss of
productivity and waste, involved in the concreting service as well as its calculation
methodology and implementation.
It was found that the losses presented medians of 5.97%, 14.50% and 7.69% for beams +
slabs, while for pillars they were 12.42%, 7.61% and 9.87%. These results are far superior
when compared to 5% of overconsumption considered by the TCPO (2008). Regarding labor
productivity, the results showed medians of 3.05, 2.13 and 2.10 Mh/m for beam and slab
concretings of 4.89, 3.87 and 3.23 Mh/m for pillar concretings. These results indicate that
the productivity of labor is still far from the reference values identified by the TCPO (2008)
which estimated a median of 2.00 Mh/m for pillars and 1.54 Mh/m for slab and beams.
This analysis allows the company to better plan the service based on facts already
experienced, verifying the best strategies of production and thus generate increases in
productivity. It is worth noting that the search for continuous improvement of processes - not
only for the service of concreting - not only ensures financial gains, but also their spot in the
market. It is also perceived that the industrialization of components is an important tool for a
good performance, but it is not sufficient, requiring also a strict control of the processes.
REFERENCES
Al-Maghony, S.S. (2006). Managing and Minimizing Construction Waste in Gaza Strip. A
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of
Science in Construction Management, The Islamic University of Gaza. Palestine, 2006.
Arajo, L.O.C. (2000). Mtodo para a previso e controle da produtividade da mo-deobra na execuo de frmas, armao, concretagem e alvenaria. Dissertao (Mestrado)
Escola Politcnica da Universidade de So Paulo. So Paulo, 2000.
Baiotto, A.C., Mutti, C.N., Arajo, H.N., Jungles, A.E. (1999). Execuo de estruturas de
concreto: estudo do desperdcio. In: Simpsio Brasileiro de Gesto da Qualidade e
Organizao do Trabalho. Anais. Recife: GEQUACIL/UPE, 1999.
Carraro, F., Reis, P., Souza, U.E.L. (1997). Produtividade no servio de concretagem.
Jornadas Sul-americanas de Engenharia Estrutural. So Paulo, 1997.

499

Alberto Casado Lordsleem Jr., Fbia Kamilly Andrade, Suenne Correia Pinho

Dantas, M.M. (2006). Proposio de aes para melhoria da produtividade da

concretagem em edifcios verticais. Dissertao (Mestrado) Escola Politcnica da
Universidade de So Paulo. So Paulo, 2006.
Jang, H., Kim, K., Kim, J., Kim, J. (2011). Labour productivity model for reinforced
concrete construction projects. Construction Innovation, v.11, n.1, p.92-113, 2011. ISSN
1471-4175.
Kim, T.W., Lee, H., Park, M., Yu, J. (2011). Productivity management methodology using
productivity achievement ratio. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, v.15, n.1, p. 23-31, 2011.
ISSN 1976-3808.
Lordsleem Jr., A.C., Andrade, F.K.G., Pinho, S.A.C. (2011). Benchmarking em
construtoras: caracterizao de 04 indicadores de execuo de obras. Maring, 2011.
Paliari, J.C., Souza, U.E.L., Andrade, A.C., Agopyan, V. (2002). Avaliao das perdas de
concreto usinado nos canteiros de obras. In: Encontro Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente
Construdo, Foz do Iguau. Anais. So Paulo: ANTAC, 2002.
Pedroso, F.L. (2009). Concreto: as origens e a evoluo do material construtivo mais
usado pelo homem. Concreto e construes. 53, 14-19.
Pinho, S.A.C. (2010). Avaliao da racionalizao da tecnologia construtiva das
vedaes em alvenaria atravs de indicadores de desempenho. Monografia Escola
Politcnica da Universidade de Pernambuco. Recife, 2010.
Souza, U.E.L. (1996). Metodologia para estudo da produtividade da mo-de-obra no
servio de frmas para estruturas de concreto armado. Tese (Doutorado) Escola
Politcnica da Universidade de So Paulo. So Paulo, 1996.
Souza, U.E.L. (2000). Como medir a produtividade da mo-de-obra na construo civil.
In: Encontro Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construdo, 8., Salvador/BA, 2000. Anais.
Salvador: UFBA, 2000.
Souza, U.E.L. (2005). Como reduzir perdas nos canteiros: manual de gesto do consumo
de materiais na construo civil. So Paulo: Pini, 2005.
Souza, U.E.L. (2010). Programa de produtividade: anlise da produtividade de
concretagens. Recife: Comunidade da Construo/ABCP, 2010.
TCPO. (2008). Tabelas de Composio de Preos para Oramentos. 13. ed. So Paulo:
Pini, 2008.
Zordan, S.E. (1997). A utilizao do entulho como agregado na confeco do concreto.
Dissertao (Mestrado) Faculdade de Engenharia Civil da Universidade Estadual de
Campinas. Campinas, 1997.

500