American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

2013

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) e-ISSN : 2320-0847 p-ISSN : 2320-0936 Volume-02, Issue-09, pp-282-289 www.ajer.org Research Paper Open Access

A Study of Labour Productivity and Work-Hour Loss -Case Study for Brick Masonry
Sunil V. Desale, Dr. Sharad V. Deodhar
1 Department of Civil Engineering, S. S. V. P. Ss B. S. Deore College of Engineering, Dhule, Maharashtra State, Pin 424 005, INDIA 2. Department of Civil Engineering, S. V. Institute of Technology, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, INDIA

Abstract: - Recourse inputs at the project site include men, material, machinery and money. These inputs
produce outputs in the form of work. The success of any project depends upon the performance availability of these resources. This paper elaborates the methodology used for controlling labour productivity which can be improved by cutting down un productivity time of the labour. The control process involves accounting of actual productivity of labors, comparing and analyzing the causes for finding the remedial measures to improve productivity. A case study approach is used to compare the B.B Masonry work, constructed at two similar, medium sized commercial construction projects located in at Walwadi area of Dhule city. The objectives of this case study are to qualify the potential benefits. For a concern site, Material related problems are identified and linked to the material management practices. A Study for Brick Masonry is taken. The numbers of work - hours lost, time loss and work-Hour overturn as well percentages of ineffective days were calculated.

Keywords: - Work - hours loss ,Labour productivity , Time loss ,Ineffective days
B. B. Masonry Cum. D prod. Cum.D wh Dprod. DQty. Abbreviations Burn Brick Masonry Cumulative Daily productivity Cumulative Day Work Hour Daily productivity Daily quantity of work done D wh LP Nom TQ Wd. No. Daily working hour Labor Productivity Number of masons Total quality work Work Day Number

I.

INTRODUCTION

Productivity commonly is the ratio of out put to in put, but it convey different meaning to different people as productivity and production capability. Productivity linked to mean workers out put capability; they express productivity as work quality production per man-hours of input. In the narrow sense of controlling project resources, the productivity concept is used to measure the performance of the resource. The actual quantity of units produced by a team of people compared to the standard amount of time needed to produce those units is generally accepted as the measurement of a factory's productivity. While productivity improvement itself is not typically a stated goal of the Lean manufacturer, the methodologies .Lean manufacturings inherently cause process improvement to improve. Formal strategies, like kaizen, focus on the incremental reductions of wait time, queue time, and other non value-adding activities. By eliminating wasteful time elements embedded in manufacturing processes, manufacturing operators are able to spend more of the working day producing products. Productivity improvement is an excellent advantage of Lean manufacturing.

II.

DATA COLLECTION

The data collection method consist of observation and documentary analysis .The data collected for this case study were collected as part of an ongoing study of construction labour productivity. The goal of the research is to test a productivity measurement technique that provides daily assessment of the problems affecting production without the need for continuous on site work measurement methods.

www.ajer.org

Page 282

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

2013

The technique depends upon both quantitative and qualitative data. The site supervisor visits each case study projects daily and classifies the day according to a set of site factors that include material management, work content and constructability issues, construction methods, environmental conditions, and other management aspects.

III.

DETAILS OF CASE STUDY

The case study involves the construction of the Burn Brick Masonry for the structures. The operations involved are preparation of mortar, transportation of bricks, lying of bricks, checking horizontality and verticality, spreading mortar, filling, joints with mortar and finishing. Both the structures were constructed by a local contractor by using a non uniform work force available locally. The site staff consisted of a single project supervisor. Project A: The case study project is a three- story residential-building with 12 Flats constructed in Walwadi area of Dhule city. The building consists of a R.C.C. frame and brick facade. The plan of the building is attached. The total Built up area is 478.418 Sq M. The area available for the storage of construction material was limited. Project B: The project B is also a three- storied residential building with 10 Flats and 8 shops at ground floor constructed on corner plot of Walwadi area of Dhule city. The building consists of R.C.C. frame and brick facade. The plan of the building is attached. Total built-up area is 557.303 Sq M. The area available for storage of construction material is more as compared to Project A.

IV.

METHODOLOGY

The procedure used to calculate work- hour losses involves a comparison between the productivity on those days when adverse material- related conditions were present and the expected productivity had there been no adverse conditions present. The first step is to purge from the data set all days for which adverse conditions of any kind are reported. Next, the expected daily productivity is derived by fitting a curve through the remaining data points. This curve represents the best estimate of what would have occurred had there been no adverse conditions present. The last step involves subtracting the actual productivity from what was expected for each day affected by the material management practices. The difference is converted to work- hours, and the sum of the differences represents the total work-hour impact. Specifically, all impacts that occur during one day or for several consecutive days are removed prior to deriving the expected curve. Impacts that underlie the entire project, for example, poor supervision or an unmotivated work force are still present, but these are eliminated, by the subtraction process. The expected curve for the case study Project A, was developed using data of Burn Brick Masonry from workdays 1-2,3-5,6-7,9-11,12-14,15-16, 17-21,25-27,28-31 and 32-35. The similar procedure was adapted to Project B. The ineffective material management leads to the inefficient use of craft labour. Construction labour productivity is the measure of the effect. There is no standard definition of productivity but one can use construction labour productivity as / = In general productivity signifies the measurement of how well an individual entity uses resources to produce out puts from inputs. The measurement scheme can be readily applied to task or crew level work.

V.

DISCUSSION

For Project A, the construction of B.B. Masonry activity lasted 35 days and required 271.5 work-hours. Work-hours and quantity data were recorded daily and yielded the daily and cumulative productivity (total work-hours divided by total units of output) as shown in Table 1and 2. The same procedure was adopted for Project B also as shown in Table3 and 4. Then data was presented in the form of combined graph1 and 2 i.e. Daily productivity Vs. Work day and Cumulative productivity Vs. Work day, similarly in graph 3 and 4.

VI.

RESULTS

The distinct material-related conditions or events occurred during B.B.Masonry are: 1. Exhaust of material supply, and crew was sent to another project. 2. The lack of materials interrupted the normal pattern of the crew and resulted in the crew stretching the work. 3. Little or no work available which slows down the work.

www.ajer.org

Page 283

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

4.

2013

Stock of materials in haphazard manner, with little consideration for the sequence of construction. The impact of the various material management conditions cited above is evident in Fig1and 2. As can be seen, almost all of the peak days on the curve representing major losses of productivity can be explained by the existence of these conditions. Table 1. Cumulative Productivity for Project A (Burn Bricks Masonry) D. Prod Wd No. of D qty. Cum. Cum Dum Date Nom D wh. (wh/ No. Labors (Sqm) Dwh Dqty. Prod. Sqm) 5/9/2007 1 2 2 7.5 11.13 0.67 7.5 11.13 0.67 5/10/2007 2 3 4 8 18.3 0.44 15.5 29.43 0.53 5/11/2007 3 3 4 8 16.5 0.48 23.5 45.93 0.51 5/12/2007 4 4 5 8 12.3 0.65 31.5 58.23 0.54 5/13/2007 5 4 6 7 18.4 0.38 38.5 76.63 0.50 5/14/2007 6 3 5 7.5 15.8 0.47 46 92.43 0.50 5/16/2007 7 4 6 8 19.6 0.41 54 112.03 0.48 5/17/2007 8 2 3 8 9.5 0.84 62 121.53 0.51 5/18/2007 9 4 6 8 22.46 0.36 70 143.99 0.49 5/19/2007 10 3 4 7.5 8.7 0.86 77.5 152.69 0.51 5/20/2007 11 3 5 7 15.7 0.45 84.5 168.39 0.50 5/21/2007 12 3 5 8 14.68 0.54 92.5 183.07 0.51 5/23/2007 13 2 4 8 9.21 0.87 100.5 192.28 0.52 5/24/2007 14 3 5 7.5 13.5 0.56 108 205.78 0.52 5/25/2007 15 4 6 8 23.89 0.33 116 229.67 0.51 5/26/2007 16 4 5 7 22.1 0.32 123 251.77 0.49 5/28/2007 17 4 5 8 18.93 0.42 131 270.7 0.48 5/29/2007 18 4 6 8 12.86 0.62 139 283.56 0.49 5/30/2007 19 3 5 6 7.35 0.82 145 290.91 0.50 5/31/2007 20 3 5 7 10.2 0.69 152 301.11 0.50 6/1/2007 21 4 6 8 19.53 0.41 160 320.64 0.50 6/3/2007 22 2 3 7.5 8.3 0.90 167.5 328.94 0.51 6/4/2007 23 3 5 8 12.43 0.64 175.5 341.37 0.51 6/5/2007 24 3 4 8 11.52 0.69 183.5 352.89 0.52 6/6/2007 25 4 6 8 22.6 0.35 191.5 375.49 0.51 6/8/2007 26 3 5 8 12.32 0.65 199.5 387.81 0.51 6/9/2007 27 3 4 8 17.3 0.46 207.5 405.11 0.51 6/10/2007 28 4 6 8 20.4 0.39 215.5 425.51 0.51 6/11/2007 29 3 5 8 10.23 0.78 223.5 435.74 0.51 6/12/2007 30 3 5 8 11.42 0.70 231.5 447.16 0.52 6/13/2007 31 4 5 8 24.2 0.33 239.5 471.36 0.51 6/15/2007 32 4 5 8 17.2 0.47 247.5 488.56 0.51 6/16/2007 33 3 4 8 11.3 0.71 255.5 499.86 0.51 6/17/2007 34 3 4 8 12.1 0.66 263.5 511.96 0.51 6/18/2007 35 4 6 8 21.3 0.38 271.5 533.26 0.51 115 169 271.5 533.26 19.72 4850.5 9546.92 17.93

www.ajer.org

Page 284

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Work Day 25 Daily Productivity Expected Productivity

2013

Productivity

30

35

40

Graph. 1 Productivity of Project A (Burn Bricks Masonry) Table 2. Summary of Work Hour Losses from Material Project A (Burn Bricks Masonry) D qty. Actual Prod. Exp. Prod. Wd. No. Dwh. Wh. Loss (Sqm) Wh./Sqm. Wh./Sqm. 4 8 12.3 0.65 0.46 2.34 8 8 9.5 0.84 0.4 4.20 10 7.5 8.7 0.86 0.4 4.02 13 8 9.21 0.87 0.4 4.32 18 8 12.86 0.62 0.4 2.86 19 6 7.35 0.82 0.4 3.06 20 7 10.2 0.69 0.4 2.92 22 7.5 8.3 0.90 0.39 4.26 23 8 12.43 0.64 0.39 3.15 24 8 11.52 0.69 0.39 3.51 26 8 12.32 0.65 0.38 3.32 29 8 10.23 0.78 0.38 4.11 30 8 11.42 0.70 0.38 3.66 33 8 11.3 0.71 0.38 3.71 34 8 12.1 0.66 0.38 3.40 52.84 Total lost work - hours

Graph. 2 Cumulative Productivity Project A B. B. Masonry

www.ajer.org

Page 285

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

2013

Fig 1 .Work loss

Fig 2 Improper stackig of brick Table 3 Cumulative Productivity for Project B (Burn Bricks Masonry) Wd No. of Dqty. D. Prod Cum. Cum Nom Dwh. No. Labors (Sqm) (Wh/Sqm) Dwh Dqty. 1 3 4 8 21.3 0.38 8 21.3 2 4 6 8 23.65 0.34 16 44.95 3 3 4 8 14.85 0.54 24 59.8 4 6 8 7.5 35.61 0.21 31.5 95.41 5 4 6 8 26.32 0.30 39.5 121.73 6 5 7 8 28.43 0.28 47.5 150.16 7 4 6 8 35.4 0.23 55.5 185.56 8 3 5 8 15 0.53 63.5 200.56 9 4 6 7.5 28.43 0.26 71 228.99 10 5 8 8 26.43 0.30 79 255.42 11 4 4 7 19.21 0.36 86 274.63 12 5 6 8 32.1 0.25 94 306.73 13 3 4 8 14.2 0.56 102 320.93 14 4 5 8 25.98 0.31 110 346.91 15 5 7 8 32.33 0.25 118 379.24 16 4 4 8 15.3 0.52 126 394.54 17 5 5 8 29.46 0.27 134 424 18 6 7 8 34.69 0.23 142 458.69

Date 6/23/2007 6/24/2007 6/25/2007 6/26/2007 6/27/2007 6/28/2007 6/30/2007 7/1/2007 7/2/2007 7/3/2007 7/4/2007 7/5/2007 7/7/2007 7/8/2007 7/9/2007 7/10/2007 7/11/2007 7/12/2007

Dum Prod. 0.38 0.36 0.40 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.31

www.ajer.org

Page 286

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

7/13/2007 7/15/2007 7/16/2007 7/17/2007 7/18/2007 7/19/2007 7/20/2007 7/22/2007 7/23/2007 7/24/2007 7/25/2007 7/26/2007 7/27/2007 7/29/2007 7/30/2007 7/31/2007 8/1/2007 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 4 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 6 4 5 4 3 4 150 5 6 6 3 6 5 5 5 7 4 5 7 5 6 6 3 6 192 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 277.5 15.65 28.76 31.64 13.95 28.95 30.64 29.43 28.58 34.12 13.63 31.58 39.85 14.96 26.46 27.15 15.2 28.67 897.91 0.51 0.28 0.25 0.57 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.55 0.25 0.20 0.53 0.30 0.29 0.53 0.28 12.01 150 158 166 174 182 190 198 206 214 221.5 229.5 237.5 245.5 253.5 261.5 269.5 277.5 4981.5 474.34 503.1 534.74 548.69 577.64 608.28 637.71 666.29 700.41 714.04 745.62 785.47 800.43 826.89 854.04 869.24 897.91 16014.39

2013
0.32 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 11.12

0.6
0.5 Productivity 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Daily Productivity Expected Productivity 30 35 40

Work Day Graph. 3 Productivity of Project B (Burn Bricks Masonry)

Table 4. Summary of Work Hour Losses from Material Project B (Burn Bricks Masonry) Dqty. Actual Prod. Exp. Prod. Wd.No. Dwh. Wh. Loss (Sqm) Wh./(Sqm.) Wh./Sqm 3 8 14.85 0.54 0.38 2.36 8 8 15 0.53 0.28 3.80 13 8 14.2 0.56 0.25 4.45 16 8 15.3 0.52 0.25 4.18 19 8 15.65 0.51 0.24 4.24 22 8 13.95 0.57 0.24 4.65 28 7.5 13.63 0.55 0.23 4.37 31 8 14.96 0.53 0.23 4.56 34 8 15.2 0.53 0.22 4.66 37.26 Total lost work - hours

www.ajer.org

Page 287

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

2013

Graph. 4 Cumulative Productivity of Project B (Burn Bricks Masonry) Table 5 Comparison Summary for B. B. Masonry Project-A Project-B Activity Duration 35 Days 35 Days Total Qty. Work 533.26 Sqm. 897.91 Sqm. Total Work-Hours 271.5 277.5 Total Lost Work-Hours 52.84 37.26 Total labour 169 192 Total Mason 115 150 Work-Hour overrun = (Total Lost Work-Hours)/ (52.84/271.5)x100=19.46% (37.26/277.5)x100=13.42% (Total Work-Hours)*100 52.84 Hours is equivalent to 37.26 Hours is equivalent to Time overrun approx. 7 days. approx. 5 days. (7/35)x100 = 20% (5/35)x100 = 14.29% Percentage of Ineffective days Out of 35 days 15 days are ineffectively used. (15/35)x100 = 42.86% Out of 35 days 9 days are ineffectively used. (9/35)x100 = 25.71%

VII.

CONCLUSIONS

The ineffective material management of Project A, was due to less area for storage, labour involved in shifting material to make construction activity possible material storage at place away from construction area more transportation cost in the form of labour. Also due to less available area more chances of accidents and lesser in safety. Additional labour force was used to expedite the transportation of materials. Travel time and human efforts can be reduced by simply providing chute so that bricks can move through chute up to each floor level, which will reduces distance of transportation and wastage due to double handling, mishandling resulting in both labour productivity as well as minimizing the waste. In case of commercial building construction ,the size of opening is kept uniform so it is better to use precast lintel which can be manufactured at the site if site layout permits or they can be manufactured at centr Work-Hour overrun ally located pre cast unit plant ,so that there will be reduction in transportation distance , time to move ,resulting in speedy construction . No use of proper methodology like Lean for A but used partially in B ..No proper discipline for the activities are made resulting Total Work-Hours 271.5 to 277.5, Total Lost Work-Hours52.84 to 37.26, Work-Hour overrun 19.46% to 13.42% Time overrun20% to 14.29% and Percentage of Ineffective days42.86% to25.71% .

VIII.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Practically it is difficult task to improve labour productivity up to 100% but one can control and improve productivity up to large extent. Labour productivity can be broadly attributed to the low morale of the workers, poor pre-work preparation by the supervisor and the directional failure of the project management. Recommendations to increase labor productivity are

www.ajer.org

Page 288

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

2013

Employ competent supervisor Improve working condition Improve method of executing work; always find a better way of doing work. Replace an inefficient working tool by appropriate efficient tool. Replace labour by appropriate equipment if economically feasible. Reduce unproductive time by constantly reviewing and minimizing causes responsible to unproductive time.

[1] [2]

[3] [4] [5]

Josef Pettersen, Defining Lean production some conceptual and practical issues , The TQM Journal vol.21,No 2 2009, pp. 127-142 Thomas, H. Randolph, Sanvido, Victor E. and Sanders, Steve R. (1989), Impact of Material Management on Productivity-A Case Study, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 370-384 Jang, Won Suk, Embedded System for Construction Material Tracking Using Combination of Radio Frequency and Ultrasound Signal, PhD Thesis, University of Maryland, 2007. Jeffry Liker, The Toyota Way, Mc Graw Hill, 2004 Thomas H.R. and Sanvido, V. E.2000. The role of the fabricator in labour productivity J Construction Engineering Management .126 (5), 358-365.

REFERENCES

www.ajer.org

Page 289