.. “-3,.1 3-. _
i l “i “j "'5' . “EEK-.51“;
If M? . a... - ‘ w . ~ ‘3 ;.- J. ‘. ”1.553.“ W1.“
« k H ‘
' U v +‘

‘2‘" . ‘

9 ' - ‘
".31'.
"t, w t l
' '1'. n. -
n'ugfl‘wl,‘ K.“ ‘I
I
1

ll‘ >
233‘» ‘.“\\t“‘ |
l ‘ fix -: ; ', l
1‘81"“ 1 _
.‘YM’UI . 4,

,.
.vxfi

.m

M1,
..%L . _

, , 35‘.
.-.:!3;
”#117554;
A v-

”‘S‘Wb" L'.'.':‘.€rj9 1' ‘

 

,..A
. my
(,LL

4 .
‘u
'e.

Q .7 - ' .
‘va‘,1“5_5's‘,‘,:
"Wan“ “,1
‘ W ‘ I. ‘3‘

"'84.‘ .

It... 'H- ‘ ,_, ,

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

APPLICATION OF LEAN PRINCIPLES TO THE
STRUCTURAL STEEL DELIVERY AND ERECTION
PROCESS

presented by

VICTOR JALIL DACCARETT GARCIA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of! degree In Building Construction
Science Marfiqement

 

 

film?

Major Professor’ 3 Signature

2/23Iéa

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

- --»— -V-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.—.-.-

b ‘. MWA-. v .—

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAY; 2 8 2005

 

NR 1 c 2207
Ital/«iii 290i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:ICI_RC/DatoDue.lndd-p.15

_—_————— _ 7 —-. l

APPLICATION OF LEAN PRINCIPLES TO THE STRUCTURAL
STEEL DELIVERY AND ERECTION PROCESS

By

Victor Jalil Daccarett Garcia

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Construction Management Program

2004

ABSTRACT

APPLICATION OF LEAN PRINCIPLES TO THE STRUCTURAL
STEEL DELIVERY AND ERECTION PROCESS

By

Victor Jalil Daccarett Garcia

The structural steel erection process is considered to be a relatively efficient and
fast part of a construction project. Opportunities for improvement are sometimes
overlooked and obscured by apparent success. Inefficiencies observed in the structural
steel erection process include: unnecessary movement of personnel, unnecessary handling
of steel pieces, and inefficient crew use. This investigation explores how to reduce or
eliminate these inefficiencies by applying principles part of the lean production theory.
One of the main principles of lean production is the reduction or elimination of non-value
adding activities (waste) from the production process (Koskela 1993).

The structural steel erection process of a building normally contains six
distinctive activities: unloading, shakeout, erection, plumbing up, permanent connection
and decking. According to lean production theory, unloading and shakeout activities are
non-value adding. In this sense, the main goal of this research was to study the viability
of eliminating non-value adding activities of unloading and shakeout from the structural
steel erection process by creating an alternative erection process.

It was found that it is possible to remove unloading and shakeout from the
erection process of structural steel frames with characteristics similar to the case studied.
Moreover, it was estimated that removing unloading and shakeout could result in a 26%

reduction in duration and almost a 20% reduction in cost for the case study.

TO GOD AND MY FAMILY

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all I want to thank God for his presence and assistance in this master thesis and
especially in my life. Thanks to my family (Issa Victor, Edda, Tatiana Yadira y Jorge
Yamil) for their unconditional love, support, and encouragement. I also want to express
my gratitude to Dr. Saturnino Rodriguez for his support and advice while at Michigan
State University.

Special thanks to Professor Tim Mrozowski; my guiding light in producing this
master thesis. I extend my appreciation to Lou Gurthet and Fromy Rosenberg in the
American Institute of Steel Construction for helping fund this research. I want to convey
my gratitude to Mr. James D. Buzzie, Mr. Lawrence F. Kruth, and their team for sharing
their knowledge. Thanks to my committee members, Dr. Robert von Bemuth and Dr.
Amit Vanna for their comments and advice.

Finally, thanks to all my friends that in one way or another played an important

role in this chapter of my life.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES- - - - _ - - ....... -- IX
LIST OF FIGURES ..... - - _ - - - - - - - XI
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..-..-.._--- - _- _ -- ..... - - - l
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Work Flow .......................................................................................................... 7
1.2.2 Material Handling ............................................................................................. 9
1.2.3 Resource Management ....................................................................................... 9
1.2.4 Site Planning .................................................................................................... 10

1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 1 1
1.4 RESEARCH SCOPE ..................................................................................................... 12
1.5 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.-- - ........... -- - 21
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 21
2.2 LEAN PRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 21
2.2.1 Origin of Lean Production ............................................................................... 22
2.2.2 Defining Lean Production ................................................................................ 25
2.2.3 Lean Production Principles and Methodologies ............................................. 29
2.2.4 Lean Construction ............................................................................................ 30
2.2.5 Problems in Construction ................................................................................ 30

2.3 RESEARCH ON STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTION .................................................. 33

 

 

 

2. 3.] Applying Lean Principles to the Structural Steel Erection Process ................ 33
2.3.2 Just In Time in the Structural Steel Supply Chain ........................................... 36
2.3.3 Delivery Approaches and Labor Productivity ................................................. 40
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY- -- - - - - - _ _ 43
3.1 METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 43
3.2 PHASE 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 44
3.3 PHASE II: TRADITIONAL PROCESS MODEL DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 44
3.4 PHASE III: ALTERNATIVE PROCESS MODEL DEVELOPMENT .................................... 46
3.4.1 Industry Survey ................................................................................................ 48
3.4.2 Alternative Model Creation ............................................................................. 48
3.4.3 Case Study ........................................................................................................ 49
3.4.4 Feedback Interviews ........................................................................................ 50
3.4.5 Proof of Concept Interviews ............................................................................ 51

3.5 PHASE IV: ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ......................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 4: THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS - ..... - -55
4.1 INTRODUCTION To THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS ...................................................... 55
4.2 ON SITE OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................... 55
4.3 INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS .................................................................................... 56
4.4 THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS MODEL ........................................................................ 59
CHAPTER 5: THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS - 64
5.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS ..................................................... 64

vi

5.2 INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS AND THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS ............................. 64

 

 

 

 

5.3 INDUSTRY SURVEY ................................................................................................... 66
5.4 THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS MODEL ....................................................................... 69
5.5 FEEDBACK INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................... 74
5.6 PROOF OF CONCEPT INTERVIEWS ............................................................................ 76
5.7 BUFFERS .................................................................................................................. 78
CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY- - .......... - -- - 80
6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 80
6.2 CASE STUDY ............................................................................................................ 80
6.3 TIME AND COST ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS - - - -- - - - 92
7.1 RESEARCH SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 92
7.2 RESEARCH CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 94
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 96
7.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................... 97
7.5 AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................. 98
REFERENCES. -------- -- -- - 101
APPENDICES - - ------ - -- 107
APPENDIX A: INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS .................................................................. 108
APPENDIX B: FEEDBACK AND PROOF OF CONCEPT INTERVIEWS ................................ 123
APPENDIX C: INDUSTRY SURVEY ................................................................................. 128
APPENDIX D: ORGANIZED TRUCKLOADS ..................................................................... 153

vii

APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON LEAN .................................................... 182

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Waste in construction: compilation of existing data ............................................. 6
Table 2: Mass vs. Lean Production characteristics ........................................................... 25
Table 3: Principles and changes to the model in Al-Sudairi’s study ................................ 35
Table 4: Comparison of material delivery methods .......................................................... 41
Table 5: Duration formulas ............................................................................................... 82
Table 6: Traditional erection process duration calculations ............................................. 82
Table 7:Alternative erection process duration calculations .............................................. 83
Table 8: Cost analysis formulas ........................................................................................ 84
Table 9: Crew cost calculations ........................................................................................ 87
Table 10 Traditional Process Cost Analysis .................................................................... 89
Table 11: Alternative Process Cost Analysis .................................................................... 90
Table 12: Investigation interviews responses A ............................................................. 112
Table 13: Investigation interviews responses B .............................................................. 116
Table 14: Investigation interviews responses C .............................................................. 121
Table 15: Feedback interviews results ............................................................................ 126
Table 16: Proof of concept interviews results ................................................................. 127
Table 17: Fabrication and erection companies responses ............................................... 136
Table 18: Organized steel with 12 inches as nominal height (Truck A) ........................ 154
Table 19: Organized steel with 12 inches as nominal height (Truck B) ......................... 154
Table 20: Organized steel with 12 inches as nominal height (Truck C) ......................... 155
Table 21: Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck D) ........................ 157

ix

Table 22:

Table 23:

Table 24:

Table 25:

Table 26:

Table 27:

Table 28:

Table 29:

Table 30:

Table 31:

Table 32:

Table 33:

Table 34:

Table 35:

Table 36:

Table 37:

Table 38:

Table 39:

Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck E) ......................... 158

Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck F) ......................... 159
Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck G) ........................ 160
Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck H) ........................ 161
Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck 1) .......................... 163
Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck J) .......................... 164
Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck K) ........................ 165
Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck L) ......................... 166
Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck M) ........................ 167
Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck N) ........................ 168
Organized steel with 18 inches as nominal height (Truck 0) ........................ 170
Organized steel with 19 inches as nominal height (Truck P) ......................... 172
Organized steel with 14 inches as nominal height (Truck Q) ........................ 173
Organized steel with 10 inches as nominal height (Truck R) ......................... 175
Organized steel with 24 inches as nominal height (Truck S) ......................... 179
Organized steel with 24 inches as nominal height (Truck T) ......................... 180
Mass vs. Lean Assembly Plant characteristics ............................................... 185
Mass vs. Lean Supply Chain characteristics ................................................... 188

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Logical network of erection activities ................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Scope of the research project ............................................................................. 14
Figure 3: Responsibilities when the erector is different from the fabricator .................... 15
Figure 4: Responsibilities when the fabricator is also the erector .................................... 16
Figure 5: Phases of the research project ........................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Types of activities encountered in any product development ......... 27
Figure 7: Interdependence of activities in the structural steel erection process ............... 31
Figure 8: Traditional structural steel erection process including fabricator activities ...... 61
. Figure 9: Traditional structural steel erection process including fabricator activities ...... 72
Figure 10: Drawing of truckloads for steel with 12 inches as nominal height ............... 156
Figure 11: Drawing of truckloads for steel with 21 inches as nominal height ............... 162
Figure 12: Drawing of truckloads for steel with 16 inches as nominal height ............... 169
Figure 13: Drawing of truckload for steel with 18 inches as nominal height ................. 171
Figure 14: Drawing of truckload for steel with 14 inches as nominal height ................. 174
Figure 15: Drawing of truckload for steel with 10 inches as nominal height ................. 178
Figure 16: Drawing of truckload for steel with 24 inches as nominal height ................. 181
Figure 17: Lean Project Delivery System ....................................................................... 190
Figure 18: The Last Planner System ............................................................................... 195

xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Construction of the structural steel frame of a building consists of four phases: design,
detailing, fabrication and erection. In the first phase, the structural engineer designs the
foundation and structural steel frame of the building and generates drawing details based
on this design. The detailer then designs connections between structural steel members
and develops shop drawings of each steel piece that is part of the structural frame. This
process is called detailing. Shop drawings are submitted to the contractor and structural
engineer to ensure that they comply with the engineer’s design. Upon approval of Shop
drawings, the fabricator precisely fabricates the steel pieces that will be part of the
structure. Once structural steel members are fabricated they are taken to the yard, loaded
on trucks and transported to the job site for erection. During the erection phase, steel
members are hoisted and fastened in their appropriate positions in the structure.

The structural steel erection process of a building normally contains six
distinctive activities: unloading, shakeout, erection, plumbing up, permanent connection
and decking. Figure 1 on the following page is a model that shows how these activities
are linked together. Shakeout is an industry term used to describe the activity of sorting
out steel members on site. It occurs after steel is unloaded from the truck. Plumbing up is
the vertical and horizontal alignment of the structural steel fiame. Permanent connection
refers to the final bolt up of the structure after plumbing up.

Labor productivity in the structural steel erection process can be impaired by

several factors such as material management practices, disruptions to the work, changes

and unfavorable weather conditions. A study by Thomas et al. (1999) investigated the
impact of material delivery practices on labor productivity. The research consisted on
studying three structural steel erection projects that used different methods of delivering

structural steel members. In the first project only three deliveries of structural steel were

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unloading
Shakeout
Erection
I
I l
. Permanent
Plumbing up Connection

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l
i

Decking

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Logical network of erection activities (Eraso 1995)

made. For the second project steel was delivered during the course of the work,
interrupting erection operations. In the third project, steel was delivered and erected daily
from the truck. The study found that in the first project almost 16% of the total work

hours were lost due to poor material management practices and in the second project 14%

of the total work hours were lost as a result of double handling structural steel. The
investigation concluded that erecting structural Steel directly from the truck was the most
efficient erection method. Thomas’ study suggests that considerable improvements could
be made to the structural steel erection process by eliminating double handling of steel
pieces as a result of unloading and Shakeout activities.

Similar approaches to achieving efficiency are being suggested by construction
researchers through application of lean principles first introduced in the automobile
industry. This thesis explores the application of these lean principles to structural steel
erection.

Lean Production was first initiated in the Japanese automobile industry after
World War II. It is called “lean” because it uses less of everything compared with mass
production; half the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the
investment in tools, half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half the time
and requires less than half the on site inventory (Womack, Jones and R005 1990). The
lean production philosophy is based on several principles. One of the main principles of
lean production is the reduction or elimination of non-value adding activities (waste)
while maximizing value adding activities of a production process. A value adding activity
is an activity that converts material and/or information into that which is required by the
customer and a non-value adding activity (also called waste) is an activity that takes time,
resources or space but does not add value (Koskela 1992).

At this time there is an ongoing effort by researchers and practitioners to adapt the
lean production philosophy to the construction industry. The goal of this research was to

determine the viability of implementing this lean production principle to the structural

steel erection process and estimate possible improvements that may result from its
implementation.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Steel is an important structural frame material. It is safe for the environment because it is
100% recyclable and it can be used year round. In addition, steel is a material that can be
produced and erected rapidly compared to other building materials such as concrete.
Specifically, the erection of the structural steel frame of a building is considered to be a
relatively efficient and fast part of a construction project. Opportunities for improvement
may be overlooked and obscured by apparent success. While there has been extensive
research on design and material aspects of structural steel, there is scarce research on
production management of the steel erection process. As a result of advancements in the
area of materials and design methods, today structures can be built using a smaller
amount of structural steel. For example if the Sears Tower was built today it would
require about 35% less steel than what was used in 1974 when it was constructed (AISC
2000)

Although steel has several advantages over other materials used for a building’s
structural frame, its production process on Site can still be improved. According to the
lean production philosophy unloading and Shakeout activities are considered to be non-
value adding activities because they are not transforming material or information into
what is required by the customer. There are two types of customers for each activity:
internal and final customers. In this case, the internal customers are the following
activities that require the structural steel frame to perform their job. The final customers

are the final users of the facility. What do customers require? They require a structural

steel frame with characteristics described in plans and specifications. The plans and
specifications of the building should be based on customer requirements. According to
the lean production philosophy if unloading and shakeout are non-value adding activities
they should be reduced or eliminated. On the other hand, erection, plumbing up,
permanently connecting and decking are value adding activities because they are
transforming material and information into a structural steel frame that complies with
plans and specifications. Erection transforms pieces of steel by joining them together and
forming the frame of the building. Plumbing up changes characteristics of the frame so
that it is aligned vertically and horizontally. Permanent connection adds value to the
structure by giving it the specified strength. Decking transforms the structure by adding a
surface that will support other components of the structure.

Table 1, developed by Koskela (1993), is a compilation of several studies
performed by different authors in the United States and Sweden that indicate the presence
of waste in construction. Waste is considered as anything that does not add value such as:
defects in products, facilities difficult to build, poor materials management, and lack of
safety. Specific studies (Oglesby 1989 and Levy 1990) of work flow processes estimated
that the average share of working time used in value adding activities was 36% and
31.9% respectively. Specifically in the steel erection process, Al-Sudairi (2000) found
that depending on project complexity, crew time spent on non-value adding activities
varies from 35 to 45%. In other words, the structural steel erection process is far from
being a “lean” process. This means that steel erection offers considerable potential for
improvements by removing existing non-value adding activities. What would happen if

the crew Spent most of its time on value adding activities?

Table 1: Waste in construction: compilation of existing data (Koskela 1993)

 

WASTE COST SOURCE COUNTRY

 

Quality costs 12% of total project

(Non-conformance) costs BuratI et a1. 1992 USA

 

External quality costs 4% of total project Hammarlund &

 

 

 

 

(During facility use) costs Josephson 1991 Sweden
Lack of 6-10% of total Constructability USA
constructability project costs 1986
Poor materials 10-12% of labor Bell & Stukhart
USA

management costs 1986
Working time used . Oglesby et al.
for non-value adding oAfI’tzfifige‘e'y 2’3 1989 USA
activities on site Levy 1990

o . .
Lack 0 f safety 6 A) of total project Lev1tt & USA

costs Samelson 1988

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ideally, according to lean theory, steel members should be erected directly from
the truck without having to unload and shakeout steel. The sources of waste associated
with unloading and shakeout activities in the structural steel erection process are
classified as follows:

1. Unnecessary movement of personnel
2. Unnecessary handling of steel pieces
3. Inefficient crew use

4. Inefficient crane usage

Even though the lean production system used in the manufacturing industry has
proven to be valuable, its applicability in other industries such as construction is still
being tested. Some inefficiency in the structural steel erection process can be eliminated
or reduced by removing non-value adding activities such as unloading and shakeout. This
study explores the possibility of removing non-value adding activities from the steel
erection process and what process changes are necessary to do so.

1.2.1 WORK FLow

According to Koskela ( 1993), problems in construction are caused by the neglect of flows
(information, material and work flows). The construction process iS sometimes viewed as
activities to be managed and improved individually disregarding that construction is a
complete system in which activities are tightly linked together (Koskela 1993). In
construction it is common that the work produced by one trade is necessary for the
succeeding trade to perform its work, as a result the performance of one trade is directly
influenced by the previous one (Tommelein et al. 1998). Particularly in the steel erection
process, the internal customer of the fabricator is the steel erector. After producing the
finished steel members, the fabricator delivers them to the site. The structural steel
members produced and delivered by the fabricator are necessary for the erector to
perform his job. As a result, fabricator performance will directly affect the erector. In
some cases there is lack of coordination and communication between fabricator and
erector. Some fabricators deliver steel members without great consideration of erection
sequence (Al-Sudairi 2000). To increase the efficiency of the structural steel erection

process both parties should work together.

Ideally, the steel erection process should be a continuous flow process. “A
continuous flow process (CFP) is a type of production line through which work is
advanced from station to station on a first-in-first-out basis. The idea is to balance
processing rates of different stations so that all crews and equipment can perform
productive work nearly uninterruptedly while only a modest amount of work-in-process
builds up in between stations” (Ballard et al. 1999). If the steel erection process was part
of a CFP the erection crew would be performing “productive” work almost
uninterruptedly and structural steel members would be delivered according to the exact
sequence so that they are erected on a first-in-first-out basis while a small amount of steel
members waits to be erected. One of the main objectives of a continuous flow process is
to maximize the production of all the crews in the system (including equipment) without
unnecessary stocking of materials between them.

The flow in the erection process is commonly disrupted because the crew has to
stop or delay the erection process in order to unload the trucks and shakeout steel
members. Sometimes the time of the deliveries iS not planned in order to improve project
performance. This lack of flow has a hindering effect on the crew’s productivity. In a
Specific project it was found that the workdays in which material deliveries were made
showed a reduction of almost 40% efficiency of the erection crew (Thomas 1999). One
reason is that the erection crew spends time moving from where they are hooking up and
connecting steel members to where the unloading and Shakeout will occur. Shifting from
one activity to another requires additional planning and set up times. When the crew
working needs to stop their present assignment having to plan and reorganize for new

work it is estimated that their efficiency can drop up to 29% (Thomas et al. 1995). By

removing non-value adding activities of unloading and Shakeout the work flow of the
process improves having a direct impact in the crew’s productivity.

1.2.2 MATERIAL HANDLING

Efficient material handling is necessary for the successful completion of a project.
Research done in this topic presents evidence that it is being poorly practiced in the
construction industry (Muehlhausen 1991). Construction managers should carefully plan
and control the flow of materials because it represents a high percentage of project total
costs. If not enough attention is given to material handling, the costs may increase
dramatically. Conversely, good material handling practices could produce great savings
for the project.

The structural steel erection process involves a considerable amount of material
handling. Triple handling of steel pieces occurs during unloading, shakeout and erection
activities, which results in loss of productivity for the erection crew (Thomas et a1. 1999).
This practice is considered to be waste according to the lean production philosophy that
strives for one touch material handling. This is another reason why removing these two
activities from the process is beneficial.

1.2.3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
For shakeout activities to be excluded from the steel erection process, the crew in charge
of loading steel on trailers would have to shakeout steel in the shop. Based on
observations made of a local fabricator and erector, the typical erection crew used on site
to unload and shakeout structural steel consists of:

o 1 erection foreman

o 4 structural steel workers

II

o l crane operator

0 1 oiler

0 l crane.

A similar crew is used in the Shop to load pieces of steel onto trailers. The observed
differences between the two crews were:

1. The wages paid to erection crewmembers is much more than the ones paid to

loading crewmembers.

2. The crane capacity on Site is approximately double the crane in the Shop.

3. The crane on site generally needs an oiler while the crane in the shop does not.
Due to these differences between crews, shakeout at the shop could have a lower cost
than shakeout on site.

1.2.4 SITE PLANNING

When erecting structural steel directly from the delivery truck, the truck could be located
on site so that movement of the crane While hoisting steel members can be minimized,
maximizing the crane’s productivity. In some projects little planning is done (before
starting the erection process) of the location where unloading and shakeout will occur.
Two important factors affecting where unloading and shakeout will take place are space
availability and easier maneuverability of the crane. Sometimes the space next to where
the structure will be erected is scarce and unloading and shakeout of structural steel there
is impossible. If steel was erected directly from the truck, it could be located closer to
where the steel members are going to be erected because the Space used by the truck is
small compared to unloading and Shakeout space required. As a result, cycle times for

hoisting steel members can be reduced improving the productivity of the erection crew.

10

Ii

1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The main goal of this research was to study the viability of eliminating the non-value

adding activities of unloading and shakeout from the structural steel erection process and

estimate possible improvements that result from their removal. Unloading and shakeout

activities have been part of a common practice in the steel construction industry for years

and some professionals consider that it may be counterproductive to exclude them. On

the contrary, one of the main principles of the lean production theory is the concept of

value, that is, focusing on removing non-value adding activities or waste. In order to

resolve this conflict the objectives of this research were:

1.

Investigate and analyze how the structural steel erection process is performed,
from fabrication to erection on site.

Create a process model of the structural steel erection process from storage of
structural steel on the fabricator’s yard to their erection on Site. (Traditional
Model)

Create an alternative process model without unloading and shakeout activities.
(Alternative Model)

Determine the viability of implementing the alternative model.

Estimate the improvements in time and cost of the structural steel erection process
that result from removing unloading and shakeout activities.

Provide recommendations to the steel construction industry based on the findings

of this investigation.

11

Along with these goals and objectives, this study was based on three hypotheses:
1. Unloading and Shakeout have a hindering effect in the overall efficiency of the
structural steel erection process.
2. It is possible to remove unloading and shakeout from the structural steel erection
process.
3. By removing the non-value adding activities of unloading and Shakeout the
duration and cost of the complete process will be reduced.
These are evaluated based on the results of this investigation.
1.4 RESEARCH SCOPE
This research focused on studying the structural steel erection process including storage
of structural steel pieces on the fabricator's yard and transportation of steel pieces to the
site. The way steel members are stored on the fabricator's yard is particularly important
because it directly influences the productivity of the crew loading them on trucks.
Plumbing up, permanently connecting and decking activities were not considered because
they are value adding activities not critically affected by removal of unloading and
Shakeout. Activities studied in depth in this research are illustrated in figure 2.

While several principles, methodologies and tools are part of the lean production
philosophy, this research was primarily based on the principle of minimizing or removing
non-value adding activities from the steel erection process with the purpose of improving
its efficiency. The objective was to determine to what extent these non-value adding
activities can be removed from the production process by creating an alternate process

and quantify its possible benefits.

12

It is common for the fabricator to subcontract a separate erector to erect the
structural steel frame of a building. The activities performed by each party in this type of
organization can be observed in figure 3. In other cases the fabricator also erects the
structural steel members, this type of organization can be seen in figure 4. This
investigation focused on the later because it covers activities that are done by both the
fabricator and erector making it easier to communicate and coordinate when both parties
are under the same organizational structure. Moreover, this type of organization removes
legal barriers existing in the construction industry.

The benefits of removing unloading and shakeout activities were estimated by
means of a case study. The characteristics of the case study project are:

0 Office building use.

0 Moderate complexity of the structural steel frame. The structural steel pieces do
not have complicated curvilinear shapes but it is not so Simple that most steel
pieces are repetitive.

o 4 stories high.

0 Available space on site for unloading and Shakeout activities.

An office building 4 stories high was chosen because it is one of the most common types
of buildings erected. The case study project was representative of a common structural
steel frame. It has an approximate fabrication and erection cost of 9.5 dollars per square

feet and weighs approximately 10 pounds per square feet.

13

FABRICATION

fl
U

 

 

RTOR A GP.

fl
U

U

I .nAnING

fl
U

TRANSPORTATION

I INI DA DING

m
U

HAKEOUT

Research Project
fl

m
U

RECTION

m
U

 

PLUMBING UP

m
U

PERMANENT
CONNECTION

V

Figure 2: Scope of the research project

14

 

 

FABRICATION

m
U

STORAGE

ricator
m
U

LOADING

Fab
m
U

TRANSPORTATION

U

 

 

UNLOADING

flfl
U

U

HAKEOUT

m

RECT ION

U

PLUMBING UP

Erector
m

m
U

PERMANENT
(‘ NNFPTION

m
U

 

 

 

Figure 3: Responsibilities when the erector is different from the fabricator

15

 

FABRICATION

m
U

U

STORAGE

mm

LOADING

U

TRANSPORTATION

U

UNLOADING

5mm
E’j

U

S

ERECTION

U

Same Fabricator and Erector

fl

PLUMBING UP

m
U

PERMANENT
C NNFCTION

m
U

 

 

 

Figure 4: Responsibilities when the fabricator is also the erector

1.5 METHODOLOGY
This research was developed in five phases (see figure 5): literature review, traditional
process model development, alternative process model development, economic feasibility

and conclusions.

 

PHASE I: Literature Review
Lean Production
Research on Structural Steel Erection

O

FPHASE 11: Traditional Process Model Development U
Company Selection
On Site Observations
Investigation Interviews
¥ Traditional Model Creation 1

O

fiPHASE III: Alternative Process Model Development
Industry Survey
Alternative Model Creation
Feedback Interviews
Proof of Concept Interviews
\ Buffers J

9

PHASE IV: Economic Feasibility
Case Study
Time and Cost Analysis

0

PHASE V: Conclusions
Summary
Findings and Recommendations
Area of Future Research

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Phases of the research project

17

The approach taken in this investigation follows the guidelines suggested by different

authors (see section 3.1). In brief, these phases are:

Phase I: Literature Review

Relevant literature in the areas of lean production and structural steel erection was
compiled and analyzed. The literature review was important because it establishes
the foundation of this investigation. In this phase research related to lean
production and structural steel erection was explored and inefficiencies in the
structural steel erection process uncovered.

Phase II: Traditional Process Model Development

The objective of this phase was to create a company specific process model of the
structural steel erection process. To create this model a fabrication and erection
company was selected, on site observation of fabrication and erection processes
performed, key personnel within the company interviewed (investigation
interviews) and finally the traditional process model created. This process model
helped map the process so that it can be improved. The main activities included in
the process model are: storage, transportation, unloading, shakeout and erection of
structural steel.

Phase 111: Alternative Process Model Development

A new alternative process model was created to remove the non-value adding
activities of unloading and Shakeout from the structural steel erection process. In
the alternative process steel is erected directly from the delivery truck. The steps

taken in this phase were:

18

Step 1: Development and administration of a survey sent to fabricators and
erectors of the Great Lakes Area including Michigan, Illinois and Indiana
to obtain information relevant to the development of the alternative
process model.

Step 2: Development of an alternative process model based on information
from the literature review, investigation interviews and the survey.

Step 3: Selection of a case study to explore the application of the
alternative process.

Step 4: Determination of whether the alternative process could be used in
the case study by interviewing key personnel within the participating
company.

Step 5: Incorporation of appropriate changes to the alternative model.

Step 6: Presentation of the model and interviews of project managers of
two fabrication and erection companies in order to receive feedback on the

proposed alternative process.

Phase IV: Economic Feasibility

The estimated duration and cost of the traditional erection process was compared
to the estimated duration and cost of the developed alternative erection process by
means of a case study. This analysis provided valuable information about the
possible benefits that can be accomplished with the alternative process.

Phase V: Conclusions

The last phase summarizes the investigation, presents findings and provides

recommendations. Several conclusions were formulated about: how lean

l9

principles could be successfully applied to the structural steel erection process, the
existence of non-value adding activities in the erection process, the advantages
and disadvantages of using the alternative process, and the efficiency of erecting
steel directly from the delivery truck including upstream fabricator activities. In

addition, areas of fiIture research are discussed.

20

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OVERVIEW

This chapter presents relevant literature that is the basis of this research. This literature
was classified in three subjects: lean production, lean construction and structural steel
erection.

The first part of the literature review is divided into five sections. The first section
presents the origin of lean production and is based on the book The Machine That
Changed The World by Womack et al. (1990). This book is one of the largest research
investigations made in the automobile industry. It reveals a production philosophy with
great impact in the manufacturing industry. The second section defines lean production.
In the third section lean production principles and methodologies are presented. A brief
introduction to lean construction is given in the fourth section. The last section talks
about current problems in construction.

There is a scarce amount of research related to production management of the
structural steel erection process. Relevant research in this area is summarized in the last
part of the literature review. Areas discussed include: applying lean principles to the
structural steel erection process, just in time in the structural steel supply chain, and
structural steel delivery methods and labor productivity.

2.2 LEAN PRODUCTION
“Lean” is a term used by International Motor Vehicle Program researcher John Krafcik to

describe the new production philosophy developed in the Toyota Motor Company

21

(Womack et al. 1990). This term was used to illustrate the differences between the new
production philosophy and mass production.

For a more in depth information on lean assembly plant, lean supply chain, lean
customer relations, lean production, the lean project delivery system, the last planner
system of production control, and work structuring see appendix E. The lean assembly
plant, lean supply chain, and lean customer relations sections are based on the book The
Machine That Changed the World by Thomas et al. (1990).

2.2.1 ORIGIN OF LEAN PRODUCTION

After World War II, Eiji Toyoda a young Japanese engineer and Taiichi Ohno chief
production engineer both working at the Toyota Motor Company in Japan, established
the concept of lean production. In 1950 Eiji visited Ford’s Rouge plant in Detroit. Back
home in Nagoya, afier a thorough study of the Rouge plant, Eiji Toyoda and Taiichi
Ohno concluded that mass production could never work in Japan. Even though Toyota
was determined to enter a full-scale production of cars and commercial trucks they had to
face several problems. The Japanese market was very small and demanded different types
of vehicles: luxury cars for government officials, large trucks to carry goods, small trucks
for farmers and small cars for Japan’s crowded cities and high energy prices. During this
time the Japanese work force was in search of more favorable employment conditions
favored by new labor laws introduced by American occupation. Moreover, the devastated
Japanese economy could not afford the latest Western production technologies. In
addition, huge motor vehicle producers were anxious of establishing their operations in

Japan and were ready to defend their established markets from Japanese exports. This

22

provoked the Japanese government to prohibit foreign investment in the Japanese
automobile industry.

It did not take long for Taiichi Ohno to conclude that Detroit’s tools and methods
were not suited to become a full-range car producer with varieties of new models. From
this point on was born what Toyota called the Toyota Production System now called lean
production.

One of the major problems faced by Ohno at this time was how to reduce the
amount of machinery required to produce the metal parts stamped from sheet metal used
to produce motor vehicle bodies. Craft producers such as Aston Martin, cut sheets of
metal and beat it by hand on a die to get the final Shape. A die is a hard piece of metal
with the shape the Sheet metal should adopt. To produce cars in a larger scale the
procedure adopted by automakers such as GM was different. They first started by cutting
flat pieces of sheet metal, slightly larger than the final part, out of a big roll of sheet
metal. For this operation an automated machine was used to produce stacks of these
pieces. Then they inserted these pieces in enormous stamping presses containing upper
and lower dies that matched to produce different body parts such as fenders. These
expensive press lines were designed to produce over a million of a given part a year. The
dies in the press could be changed to produce different parts but this procedure could take
a day. The problem was that the dies were very heavy and specialists had to align them
with absolute precision otherwise they could produce wrinkled parts or even melt the
sheet metal.

For Ohno this procedure was impossible to implement because he would have

required hundreds of stamping presses and he could only afford a few press lines. Instead

23

he developed simple die changing techniques (using rollers) which by late 1950’s took
only three minutes and could be done by the same production workers that otherwise
would be idle. The die changes were performed every two or three hours versus two to
three months. Surprisingly, Ohno discovered that using this procedure each part could be
produced at a lower cost. One reason was that it eliminated the cost of enormous
inventories required by mass production systems. Probably the most important reason
was that by making small amount of parts before assembly mistakes could be detected
immediately.

Another radical change was experienced by the Toyota Motor Company when,
due to macroeconomic problems, the car business experienced a big crisis in Japan.
Kiichiro Toyoda, president of the company, decided to survive the crisis by firing a
quarter of the workforce. The workers went on a strike. They were in a strong position to
Win the strike supported by several law changes that restricted the ability of company
owners to fire workers. After negotiations with the union, it was decided that a quarter of
the workforce was going to be terminated but Kiichiro Toyoda had to resign. In addition,
the remaining employees were granted lifetime employment and their pay increased with
seniority. Employees were now considered as fixed costs.

In Table 2 the characteristics of lean production are summarized and contrasted to
the characteristics of mass production. The first element mentioned in the table refers to
characteristic of lean production of producing different products in less time. This is
possible due to the flexible machinery used in lean production. Flexible machinery is
machinery that can be moved or adapted easily to fabricate different products. At the

same time having flexible machinery enables the fabrication of a wider variety of

24

products with less machines. In mass production the machinery is more rigid, this means
that the parts are produced for a longer period of time. As a result, large inventories of
parts are required. The last element, workforce stability, is used to describe how Toyota

employees had lifetime employment.

Table 2: Mass vs. Lean Production characteristics (Information from Womack et al.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1990)
CHARACTERISTIC
No. ELEMENT
MASS
PRODUCTION LEAN PRODUCTION

1 Product variety Low High

2 Machinery Inflexible Flexible

3 Numtier 0f High Low

machines
4 Inventories High Low
5 Workforce stability Low High

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.2 DEFINING LEAN PRODUCTION

Lean production can hardly be defined in one phrase. It consists of various principles,
methodologies and tools. Lean production is primarily a customer-based production
philosophy whose main objective is the reduction or elimination of non-value adding

activities from the production process while maximizing value adding activities. In this

25

way, lean production focuses on adding value to a raw material as it advances through
various processing steps until it becomes a finished product (Tommelein 1998). Koskela
( 1992) defines value adding and non-value adding activities as follow:
0 A value adding activity is an activity that converts material and/or information
into that which is required by the customer.
0 A non-value adding activity (also called waste) is an activity that takes time,
resources or space but does not add value.
It must be understood that value is generated by satisfying customer requirements. Who
is the customer? There are two types of customer for each activity: the following
activities (also called internal customers) and the final customer (people using the
facility) (Koskela 1992). What does the customer require? The following activities
require the output of previous activities so that they can execute their work. For
example, the structural steel erector requires steel members to perform the erection
process. The final customer requires the completed building in compliance with the
plans and specifications.

While all activities expend cost and consume time, only conversion activities add
value to the material or piece of information being transformed into a product. For this
reason non-value adding activities (inspection, moving, waiting) through which value
adding activities are bound together should be reduced or eliminated, while conversion
activities should be made more efficient (Koskela 1993).

Waste is anything that does not directly add value to the final product but

consumes resources. That means that transportation of materials, set up of equipment,

idle or waiting time of workers and equipment, and unnecessary stock of materials are all

26

considered waste. We know that some of these activities such as transportation of
materials to the site, set up of equipment and certain inspections are unavoidable.
Without them it would be practically impossible for a construction process to work. For
these reason there are two categories of non-value adding activities. The ones that are
unavoidable with current technologies and production assets are called non-value adding
contributory activities and the ones that can be excluded from the process are called non-
value adding idle activities (Al-Sudairi 2000). Any conversion activity that adds up to the
final product is usually considered value adding. Examples of the different types of

activities found in production processes can be found in figure 6. Some times, waste

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TYPE OF
ACTIVITIES
I
NON-VALUE ADDING
ACTIVITIES
I
VALUE ADDING CONTRIBUTORY DELAY
ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES
(Type-1) (Type-2)
Any conversion activity . Transportation . Waiting
The efficiency of 0 Preparation work 0 Idle
conversion activities is 0 Setting up 0 Piling up materials
very crucial to improving equipment 0 Double handling
any process ’ Batch & Queue 0 Transition among
0 Delivery of material sub-processes
0 Most of paper work
0 Inspection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: Types of activities encountered in any product development (Al-Sudairi 2000)

27

could be found within value adding activities. This is the most difficult type of waste to
detect. This type of waste could be present in the form of an inefficient or ineffective
process. Taiichi Ohno classified the sources of waste as follows (Womack and Jones
1996k

1. Defects of products

2. Over-production of goods not needed

3. Inventories of goods awaiting further processing or consumption

4. Unnecessary processing

5. Unnecessary movement of people

6. Unnecessary transport of goods

7. Waiting by employees for process equipment to finish its work or for an upstream

activity to complete

8. Design of goods and services that fail to meet user’s needs
In lean production various principles have been developed in order to enhance flow
process design, control and improvement. These principles can be applied to almost any
type of production system and they are (Koskela 1992):

0 Reduce the Share of non-value adding activities (also called waste).

0 Increase out put value through systematic consideration of customer requirements.

0 Reduce variability.

0 Reduce cycle times.

0 Simplify by minimizing the number of steps, parts and linkages.

0 Increase output flexibility.

0 Increase process transparency.

28

Focus control on complete process.
Build continuous improvement into the process.
Balance flow improvement with continuous improvement.

Benchmark.

2.2.3 LEAN PRODUCTION PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGIES

Among all these principles probably the most important is the reduction of non-value

adding activities. Specifically in construction there is a very high share of non-value

adding activities that obstruct the production process.

There are also several existing methodologies that are used to attain lean

production. Some of the most important ones are (Koskela 1992):

Just In Time (JIT)

Total Quality Management (TQM)
Time Based Competition

Concurrent Engineering

Process Redesign (Reengineering)
Value Based Management

Visual Management

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

Employee Involvement

All of these methodologies are partial approaches towards the improvement of a

production system. Each methodology has its own set of techniques that have been

developed.

29

2.2.4 LEAN CONSTRUCTION

Adapting the lean production philosophy to construction is not a straightforward process.
The construction industry is different from the manufacturing industry preventing the
direct implementation of lean principles. Some of the differences include: one of a kind
nature of projects, site production, and temporary multi-organization (Koskela 1993). In
other words every project is different, built in a different site with different characteristics
and by different project participants.

The Lean Construction Institute (LCI) is an organization whose purpose is the
adaptation of lean production to construction. Although there has been considerable
amount of research done in the area of lean construction, less is known about it in the
field of practice.

2.2.5 PROBLEMS IN CONSTRUCTION

The efficient and effective administration of today projects has become a challenge for
current construction management practices. There are an incredible number of parties
involved in the construction process. Coordinating all these project participants seems to
be almost impossible. With the years, projects have been growing more complex and it is
hard for current construction management practices to keep up with the pace of this
demanding industry. Although construction management information systems help
alleviate some of the needs of the construction industry there is still a lot to be done.
Construction management practices need to be advanced to solve basic problems.

Several authors have criticized current construction project management
practices. According to Koskela (1992), problems in construction are a result of the

neglect of information, material and work flows. He explains how conventional

30

managerial methods like CPM (Critical Path Method) deteriorate flows by violating the
principles of flow process design and improvement leading to an expansion of non-value
adding activities. The CPM method views the construction process as a set of activities to

be controlled and improved individually, forgetting that they are part of a bigger process

 

 

FABRICATOR
Fabrication and delivery of
structUral steel

CONCRETE
CONTRACTOR
Placement of anchor rods

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STEEL ERECTOR
Erection of Structural Steel

 

 

 

 

 

DECKING
CONTRACTOR
Metal decking and shear
studs

 

 

 

 

 

CONCRETE
CONTRACTOR
Reinforcement and pouring
slabs

 

 

 

Figure 7: Interdependence of activities in the structural steel erection process

and most activities are related with each other. The work performed by a trade is required

for the next trade to perform. Figure 7 presents a clear example of the interdependence

31

between activities in the erection of the structural steel frame of a building. The way
work is handed from one trade to another has a direct impact in the succeeding trade
performance. In some projects materials, information and work flows are neglected and
current construction project management methods do not address this issue (Koskela
1992). This problem is aggravated by some contractual relationships existing in the
construction industry in which the work is evaluated according to the cost and duration
and have little consideration of how it may affect others.

In some projects there are no mechanisms in place that prevent mistakes from
occurring. Continuous improvement should be built in the system to learn from previous
problems. For example, in some projects, when a deviation in cost and time is detected
the project is brought back to schedule by focusing in the following activities. This means
that downstream activities pay the price for mistakes done in upstream activities. The root
causes that provoked the deviation in the first place are sometimes not addressed.
Chances are it will happen again in the next project.

According to a study by Tommelein et al. (1998), one of the shortcoming of using
the Critical Path Method for field level planning is that it does not explicitly represent
reliability between successive trades. This study illustrated the impact of work flow
variability has on succeeding trade performance. Using a game, construction processes in
which resources produced by one trade are prerequisite to staring work for the next trade
were simulated. The game shows how waste and project duration can be reduced by
improving the reliability of work flow between trades. Reliable work flow means that

work is handed from one trade to another in a dependable way.

32

Schedules are sometimes not an accurate measurement of project performance.
Research by Ballard (1997) suggests that schedules and budgets assume that poor
performance will occur. On the project he studied, more than 30% of engineering
deliverables were late on average by 56 days. Surprisingly the project was finished on
time and on budget. Even though projects meet cost and time requirements they continue
to have considerable amount of waste in them.

2.3 RESEARCH ON STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTION

Most of the research on structural steel has been performed from a design and materials
standpoint. Limited research is available on production management of the structural
steel erection process. Perhaps the reason is that steel erection is considered to be a
relatively fast and efficient process.

2.3.1 APPLYING LEAN PRINCIPLES TO THE STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTION PROCESS
Womack and Jones (1996) summarized lean thinking into five key lean principles:
precisely specify value by specific product, identify the (value stream for each product,
make value flow without interruptions, let the customer pull value from the producer, and
pursue perfection. According to Womack and Jones by understanding these lean
principles and using them together managers can make a complete use of lean techniques.

As stated by Womack and Jones (1996) lean thinking starts by defining value for
a specific product from the customer’s point of view. That is, what the customer needs
and wants from a specific product. Then the value stream for each product should be
identified. The value stream is the set of actions required to produce a specific product,
service or a combination of both. The actions that are part of the value stream can be

classified in three different groups: steps that create value, steps that create no value but

33

are unavoidable with current technologies and production assets, and steps that create no
value and can be avoided. In this thesis these steps or activities are referred to as value
adding activities, non-value adding contributory activities and non-value adding idle
activities. After eliminating wasteful steps the remaining value creating steps should flow
continuously. The next principle consists of letting the customer pull the value from the
producer. This means that customer needs should determine the production of goods
rather than producing more goods than needed and pushing them to the customer. The
last principle is to pursue perfection. This means that lean thinking does not stop by
applying the previous four lean principles once. It is a continuous effort of reducing steps
that create no value or muda.

An investigation that studied the applicability of lean principles to the structural
steel erection process is Evaluation of Construction Processes: Traditional Practices
versus Lean Principles by Al-Sudairi (2000). Al-Sudairi explored what would be the
results of applying lean principles to the structural steel erection process using computer
simulation. First, he modeled the actual steel erection process. Then the five lean
principles presented in Table 3 were considered in the model and the improvements in
cycle time, productivity, utilization and throughput measured. Table 3 also summarizes
the changes made to the model in relation to each principle.

This process was applied to three different projects that varied in size and
complexity. In this way be evaluated the impact these lean principles had in different
projects. It was concluded that lean principles improved project performance by more
than 30% when compared to traditional practices and that lean principles had a bigger

impact in more complex larger projects.

34

Al-Sudairi also concluded that not all lean principles are applicable to the
structural steel erection process. This conclusion was based on the results he obtained
when “uncontrollable” factors such as traffic and delivery errors were applied to the
computer model along with other lean principles such as the pull principle. Al-Sudairi
implemented the pull principle by having small buffers of materials on site to supply

immediate demands. Then he considered other factors such as variations in activity

Table 3: Principles and changes to the model in Al-Sudairi’s study (Adapted from Al-

 

 

 

Sudairi 2000)
PRINCIPLE CHANGES TO THE MODEL
Specify Value Materials were fabrIcated by bays Instead
of levels
Reduce contributory activities by
Eliminate Muda combining unload activities to shakeout
activities

 

Rethink Your Operating Methods Buffer size is changed from big to medium

 

Similar changes to principle 1, the

Focus on actual objects from difference is that value is observed within
beginning to completion erection process with small buffer size and
strong coordination

Materials are pulled from fabricator yard at
the right time in the right quantity to the
erection site

All the aforementioned changes besides
unload and shakeout activities were
eliminated and rework rate was assumed to
be zero

 

Release resources for delivery just
when needed

 

Form a picture of perfection

 

 

 

 

duration, traffic conditions and errors in material sequence. When these factors were

considered in the model along with the pull principle the system became volatile. A pull

35

system, as explained by Womack and Jones (1996) is a system of dictating production
and delivery instructions from downstream to upstream activities in which nothing is
produced by the upstream supplier until the downstream customer Signals a need. The
pull principle is one of the bases of the famous just-in-time system. The just-in—time
system advocates producing and delivering the right items at the right time in the right
amounts (Womack and Jones 1996). That means that if there are known uncontrollable
factors they should be considered in the sizing of buffers so that the system runs
smoothly. As lean principles and techniques are applied to the process these queues of
materials tend to be reduced to a minimum.

Even though Al-Sudairi’s investigation provided valuable insight about the
presence of non-value adding activities in the structural steel erection process more
research is needed to investigate new ways of removing non-value adding activities. In
his investigation instead of removing non-value adding activities of unloading and
shakeout from the structural steel erection process be combined them eliminating several
steps to make the process more efficient. When there is an attempt to remove non-value
adding activities from a process existing barriers found in the process should be ignored.
In this way we do not limit ourselves to current production assets and technologies
(Womack and Jones 1996). The barrier in this case was the difficulty of completely
removing unloading and shakeout from the process.

2.3.2 JUST IN TIME IN THE STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPLY CHAIN
Just-in-time (JIT) is based on a pull system; this means that parts are produced in
previous steps only to supply the immediate demand of the following steps. Ohno used a

Simple mechanism to give the order to upstream steps to produce more parts. In his

36

system parts were supplied to the following steps using containers. When a container was
used up, it was sent back to the previous step indicating them to produce more parts
(Womack and Jones 1996). In this way containers worked as feedback mechanisms
Signaling stations upstream that more product is needed. For this system to work
efficiently there must be the appropriate number of containers to supply parts so that the
process runs smoothly without having to stock parts or stop the process to wait for more
parts. On the contrary, in push systems parts are produced by upstream suppliers based on
forecasts that sometimes do not reflect reality. As a result the number of parts may be so
much that needs to be stocked or there may be so few that the process needs to stop, in
both ways waste is produced.

More Just-In-Time: Location of Buflers in Structural Steel Supply and
Construction Processes a paper by Tommelein and Weissenberger (1999) specifically
addressed JIT in the structural steel supply chain. Their objective was to explore if JIT
was being utilized in the structural steel industry by means of reviewing literature and
interviewing steel fabricators, erectors and contractors. They explained how if JIT was
used in the supply chain, materials should be brought to their location for final
installation and be installed immediately upon arrival without incurring in any delay due
to storage in a lay down or staging area. The paper presented common industry practices
in the structural steel supply chain for building construction to later illustrate a JIT
idealized version of the same supply chain. Following is in brief their explanation of the
supply chain and its JIT version.

Commonly on design-bid-build projects the owner hires an architectural

engineering (AE) firm, which in turn hires a structural designer. At the beginning of the

37

process, the owner and designer go through a lengthy and iterative process of defining
project requirements that will be part of the bid documents. Then the project is put out for
bid and a general contractor (GC) selected. The GC subcontracts the steel work to the
fabricator who subcontracts the field installation work to a structural steel erector. The
responsibility of the fabricator is to acquire, fabricate and Ship the materials to the site in
the sequence needed for erection. The fabricator may also subcontract detailing work.
The GC will meet with the fabricator and erector during bid preparation to assess project
site constraints to position the erector’s crane. This will determine the steel erection
sequence and the layout of other temporary facilities. This sequencing drives the
fabrication schedule that must coincide with the GC’s master schedule. Special
consideration must be given to the time it will take the fabricator to procure the materials.
The fabricator will make takeoffs and procure materials from the mill as soon as possible,
even before detailing connections and creating shop drawings. This is done because steel
mills usually work on 6 week rolling schedules. Meanwhile details and shop drawings
will be created and submitted to the designer through the GC for approval. Materials
received by the fabricator will be stored in a lay down area from where they will be
retrieved for fabrication. In the fabrication shop a significant amount of handling back
and forth of steel pieces is the result of the fabricator’s objective of maximizing machine
and labor utilization. The fabricator gets paid in full for delivery of the structural steel to
site even if the site is not yet ready to receive it. In this way the fabricator has the
incentive to complete as much work as early as possible. The fabricator will thoroughly
plan the sequencing and site delivery of steel pieces in the order they will be needed on

site. It is very common in building construction to have scarce space on site that is why

38

careful planning iS required. Once steel arrives on Site the crane off-loads and moves
pieces to a staging area from where steel is picked up and moved to its final position in
the structure.

According to Tommelein and Weissenberger (1999) in an ideal just-in-time
system, there should be two pull mechanisms in the steel supply chain described as
follows. The first pull mechanism controls the amount of steel produced by the mill. Part
of the production fi'om the mill is dictated by custom orders. The other part of the
production is dedicated to run-of-the-mill product in anticipation of custom orders. This
product is stored in a place with limited capacity for storing product that will be
replenished once it is needed. The second pull mechanism will handle the output from the
fabrication process. Only a certain amount of steel will be fabricated to supply the
erection process. In this case, a small inventory buffer may also be needed to balance
fabrication and erection processes. No buffer should be maintained on site because there
is no space.

Although this approach of applying JIT'in the structural steel supply chain is a
step in the right direction there is more to be considered. As mentioned earlier, structural
steel an'iving on site should be erected on a first-in—first-out basis without having to store
it. There needs to be certain amount of steel available for the erection crew to work
continuously. In addition, the amount of steel waiting to be erected should consider other
factors such as heavy traffic. A pull mechanism should be used to control the size of this
queue of structural steel. This would eliminate unnecessary double handling of steel
pieces during unloading and shakeout and the erection crew would be performing

“productive” nearly uninterruptedly. In an ideal situation steel could be loaded on trailers

39

so that it could be erected directly from them. Trucks would not be idle because they
would leave loaded trailers and would bring the empty ones back to the shop. In this case
empty trailer trucks arriving to the fabricators’ shop could indicate the fabricator that
more structural steel needs to be delivered to the site. This is similar to Ohno’s
mechanism where used up empty containers of parts coming from downstream stations
indicated upstream stations that more parts needed to be produced. Without some kind of
pull mechanism controlling the amount of material on site, JIT would be difficult to
implement in this part of the process.

2.3.3 DELIVERY APPROACHES AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY

Once structural steel is fabricated it is ready to be sent to the site where it will be erected.
There are different approaches of delivering structural steel members to the Site. Thomas
et al. (1999) studied the impact that approaches methods had on the erection crew
productivity. Three projects that used different delivery approaches were studied. In the
first project only three deliveries of structural steel were made, stockpiling randomly steel
members on site. In the second project, steel deliveries were made during the course of
the work interrupting erection operations. This means that the erection crew had to stop
hoisting steel pieces in order to unload and shakeout steel pieces from the truck.
Materials were double handled as part of unloading and shakeout activities. In the third
project, steel was delivered and erected daily from the truck. Daily productivity data for
each project was recorded (work hours per piece of steel, wh/pc). Other data that could
potentially affect productivity was documented including temperature, weather
conditions, and important events affecting the work. A multiple regression model was

used to quantify the effect material deliveries (amongst other factors including snow,

40

wind, temperature and crane relocations) had on productivity. To compare delivery
methods the work hours lost due to poor material management were estimated for each
project. The first project lost 0.48 wh/pc (16% of total work hours) due to disorganized
delivery and storage practices. The second project lost 0.27 prc (14% of total work
hours) as a result of double handling steel members. The losses on the third project Were
0.07 Wh/pc. On the workdays in which material deliveries were made there was a loss of

productivity of almost 40%. Table 4 is a summary of the work hours lost for each project.

Table 4: Comparison of material delivery methods (Adapted from Thomas et al. 1999)

 

 

 

 

LOST
MATERIAL TOTAL $313; 135131;: WORK
PROJECT DELIVERY WORK HOURS OF HOURS
METHOD HOURS LOST PIECES PER
PIECE
1 Dump and Hunt 1,256 200.6 414 0.48
Unload and
2 shakeout each 768 108.9 395 0.27
truck
Erect steel directly
from truck,
3 shakeout by 526 27.3 399 0.07
fabricator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This investigation concluded that erecting structural steel directly from the delivery truck
was the most efficient erection method. Thomas’ Study suggests that considerable
improvements could be made to the structural steel erection process by eliminating

double handling of steel pieces as a result of unloading and Shakeout activities.

41

Results from this investigation are very revealing because the common industry
practice involves unloading and shakeout structural steel members before their erection.
The results from this investigation are directly influenced by the characteristics of each
project. Further investigation of projects with different characteristics is needed to
support the conclusion about delivery methods. In addition, “point efficiency” can
sometimes be misleading. Even though productivity of the erection crew is higher when
structural steel is erected directly from the delivery truck, it does not mean that the
process is more efficient. Changes in the erection method may have an impact in
upstream activities resulting in an overall low efficiency. For example, additional time
might be needed to sort steel by the fabricator in order to load the trucks in inverse order
so that they can be erected directly from the truck. The inclusion of these upstream
activities in developing conclusions about removing loading and shakeout is an important

contribution of this investigation.

42

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION
Although lean production can be very valuable in the manufacturing industry, researchers
and practitioners are continuously exploring how it can be employed in the construction
industry. Koskela (1992) suggests: I
“The inherent recommendation of the new philosophy to construction
practitioners is clear: the share of non-value adding activities in all
processes has to be systematically and persistently decreased. Increasing
efi’iciency of value adding activities has to be continued in parallel. The
basic improvement guideline is thus: get started, define processes,
measure them, locate and prioritize improvement potential, implement
improvement and monitor progress! Process definition and measurement
is crucial. Work processes must first be made transparent by charting
them. Next, the inherent waste in processes must be made visible through
suitable measures, and targets and monitoring should be focused on it. "
This means that the first step is to map the process. Then appropriate measurements
should be used to uncover existing waste in the process and determining opportunities for
improvement. Afterwards possible improvements to the process should be estimated to
establish if they Should be implemented. Finally, Koskela (1992) proposes to implement
improvements and constantly monitor the progress.
The methodology used in this research is similar to the approach proposed by

Koskela (1992). This thesis is divided into six distinctive phases. In the first phase,

43

available research related to lean production and structural steel erection was compiled
and analyzed and opportunities to improve the structural steel erection process were
examined. After determining the theoretical course of action adopted in this research, a
local fabricator and erector was visited and key personnel interviewed with the objective
of mapping the structural steel erection process by producing a process model (Phase II).
The purpose of the third phase was to create an alternative procedure with the exclusion
of unloading and shakeout from the erection process. Then, in the fourth phase, the
researcher determined if it is economically feasible to implement the alternative model.
In Phase V the alternative process was presented to the construction industry with the
objective of receiving feedback on it. The last phase summarizes this research, presents
findings and provides recommendations.

3.2 PHASE I: LITERATURE REVIEW

On the first phase of this investigation available literature on lean production and
structural steel erection was compiled and studied. The first step was to gain an
understanding of tools that could help in improving current construction practices. In this
sense, the researcher examined literature on lean principles. The next step involved
investigating the current status of research related to structural steel erection and
determining opportunities to improve it. Methodologies used to improve steel
construction were also studied.

3.3 PHASE II: TRADITIONAL PROCESS MODEL DEVELOPMENT

A process model that describes the structural steel erection process was created in this
phase. This process model is referred to as the “traditional process model”. The model

helps visualize the activities that are part of the process and how they are related with

44

each other. Four steps were taken to create the traditional model and they are: company

selection, on site observations, investigation interviews and traditional model creation.

Step 1: Company Selection

A fabrication and erection company was selected primarily based on specialty,
geographic location and their interest in participating in the study. The selected
company Specializes in fabrication and erection of structural steel. This facilitated
the communicating and coordinating with personnel in fabrication and erection
processes. The participating company was invited to participate in this
investigation by allowing the researcher perform the following activities: study
their structural steel erection process, conduct interviews with key personnel
directly involved with the process, and provide information on the case study
project.

Step 2: On Site Observations

In this step the researcher observed, understood and learned how the company
performs fabrication, storage, loading, transportation, unloading, shakeout and
erection activities. These observations were the starting point of the traditional
process model.

Step 3: Investigation Interviews

Interviews were conducted with key personnel within the selected company to
obtain information on technical details included in the creation of the traditional
process model. In addition, interviews help gain valuable insight on how to create
the alternative process model. These interviews were complementary to on site

observations performed in the previous step. Personnel interviewed were: the

45

project manager, shipping and delivery foreman, and erection foreman.
Interviewees were contacted via telephone to solicit their participation on the
interviews and given their approval, to schedule each interview. In the interview,
each interviewee was first asked to read a UCRIHS (University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects) approved consent form. Then interviews
were conducted. Responses provided were summarized. The consent forms,
questions and responses of the interviews can be found in appendix A.

Step 4: Traditional Model Creation

This was the final step towards the creation of a process model depicting the
traditional structural steel erection process. Information gathered during the on
Site observations and interviews was used to create the process model. The
process model contains a step-by-step progression of activities in the structural
steel erection process including storage, loading, transportation, unloading,
shakeout, and erection activities. The main reasons for the creation of the
traditional model were to document the process and to describe how all the
different steps of the process work together. This mapping of the process was the

reference point to build the alternative structural steel erection process model.

3.4 PHASE III: ALTERNATIVE PROCESS MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The objective of this phase was to create an alternative process without the non-value

adding activities of unloading and shakeout. Several changes were made to the traditional

process in order to exclude these activities. In this sense the goal of this phase was to

create a process that allows the erection of structural steel members directly from the

truck. With this goal in mind the objectives of the alternative process were:

46

1. Store steel pieces on the fabricator’s yard so that it facilitates loading according to
erection order.
2. Load the trailers to the same capacity as in the traditional loading activity.
3. Load the structural steel members on the trucks so that they can be erected in the
exact order on Site.
4. Arrange the structural steel members on trailers so that it allows for easy
attachment of chokers for hoisting.
This phase was developed in six steps: Industry Survey, Alternative Model Creation,
Case Study, Feedback Interviews, and Proof of Concept Interviews. First a survey was
sent to fabrication and erection companies to receive information on how to create the
alternative process. Then an alternative model was created excluding unloading and
shakeout activities. After that, a case study was selected and information about it
compiled. Next the researcher verified if the alternative model could be applied to the
case study. Feedback about the alternative model was obtained by interviewing key
personnel within the participating company. Feedback interviews had two purposes:
determine if the model could be applied to the case study and receive suggestions on how
the model could be improved. Before each interview the alternative model was presented
including the procedure for loading steel pieces on trucks. Finally, proof of concept
interviews were conducted. In this step the project managers of two fabrication and
erection companies were interviewed to determine if the alternative process was
applicable to other companies in the steel construction industry. Following is a detail

description of each step taken.

47

 

 

 

3.4

11611 a
3.4.2,

1“ S] (T'
t:

 

 

3.4.1 INDUSTRY SURVEY

The main purpose of the survey was to obtain information on how the alternative process
model could be created. The survey was sent via mail to a total of 56 companies members
of either the Great Lakes Fabricators and Erectors Association or the Associated Steel
Erectors of Chicago. Companies were selected based on their specialty, fabrication and
erection of structural steel. Companies specialized on other areas of steel construction
such as fabrication of miscellaneous steel and fabrication and distribution of rigging
equipment were not considered for the survey. The survey was directed either to the
president, vice-president, project manager or Operations manager of each company
depending on who the designated contact was on the website of each association. The
envelope sent to each company included a UCRIHS (University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects) approved consent form, the survey and a stamped envelope
to return the survey. The consent form, survey and responses can be found in appendix C.
3.4.2 ALTERNATIVE MODEL CREATION

A process model describing the alternative process was created based on the literature, on
site observations, investigation interviews and industry survey. This process model is
referred to as the “alternative process model”. Activities that described include storage,
loading, transportation and erection. The traditional model was modified to create the
new alternative model.

3.4.2.] Special Issues

A significant difficulty in creating the alternative process was determining how the pieces
of steel should be loaded onto trailers. The steps taken to determine how steel pieces

should be arranged on each truck were:

48

. Shop drawings of the case study project (described below) were acquired.

. The order of how the steel pieces were erected on site for the case study was
obtained from the erection foreman.

. A list of all the structural steel pieces of the case study was obtained. The list also
included the following information about each piece: piece mark, sequence,
quantity, shape, length, and weight.

. Pieces of structural steel were then grouped according to the sequence in which
they were erected.

. Pieces of steel within each sequence were listed in the same order they were
erected on Site.

. The steel pieces to be loaded on each truck were determined by the weight of each
piece, the capacity of the truck and the erection order.

. The cross section of each steel piece was drawn to scale using CAD software.

. The section of the trailer where pieces will be loaded was drawn to scale using
CAD software.

. Several loading patterns were tested using the drawings of the structural steel

pieces and the trailer. The optimum loading pattern was selected.

3.4.3 CASE STUDY

The selected case study is representative of a common structural steel frame of a

building. In this way this investigation can be applicable to most buildings. The chosen

structural steel frame had the following characteristics:

Not excessively complex. The structural steel pieces that were part of the

structure did not have complicated curvilinear shapes.

49

0 Between 3 and 6 stories high.
0 There was enough area available on site so that unloading and shakeout activities
could be done without limitations.
Once the case study was selected, information from it was obtained to explore the
applicability and economic feasibility of implementing the alternative process. The
participating fabrication and erection company provided the following information on the
case study project:
0 Shop drawings, e-drawings, and structural plans of the project
0 Erection order of the structural steel pieces
0 Number of trucks used to transport the structural steel members
0 List of all the fabricated pieces of steel. The list contained the following
information about each piece: piece mark, erection sequence, quantity, shape,
length, and weight.
0 Erection crew description
0 Schedule of the structural steel erection phase
0 Specification of the crane used for erection
This information was used to plan the transportation activity (how each truckload of
structural steel will be loaded) and to estimate the cost and duration of the traditional and
alternative processes.
3.4.4 FEEDBACK INTERVIEWS
After development of the alternative process model interviews were conducted of key
personnel within the participating company to determine if the alternative steel erection

process was viable for the case study project. Interviews with the project manager,

50

shipping and delivery foreman and erection foreman of the participating company helped
explore if the alternative process is realistic, possible and safe.

Interviewees were contacted via telephone to solicit their participation on the
interviews and given their approval, to schedule each interview. In the interview, each
interviewee was first asked to read a UCRIHS (University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects) approved consent form. Then the researcher presented to
them the traditional and alternative model found in figures 10 and 11. Subsequently, the
process of how each truckload planned in the alternative model was explained using the
tables and figures found in appendix D. Then interviews were conducted. Responses
provided were summarized. The consent forms, questions and responses of the interviews
can be found in appendix B.

The interviews helped determine if the alternative process complied with the
objectives established in section 1.5.3 for the alternative process. Through feedback
interviews weaknesses and strengths of the alternative process were revealed.

3.4.5 PROOF OF CONCEPT INTERVIEWS

The objective of this step was to present the alternative model to other industry members
to determine if hte model would be applicable generally within other steel firms in the
construction industry. The project manager of two fabrication and erection companies
were interviwed.

The process followed in proof of concept interviews was the same as the process
of the feedback interviews. Interviewees were contacted via telephone to solicit their
participation on the interviews and given their approval, to schedule each interview. In

the interview, each interviewee was first asked to read a UCRIHS (University Committee

51

on Research Involving Human Subjects) approved consent form. Then the researcher
presented to them the traditional and alternative model found in figures 10 and 11.
Subsequently, the process of how each truckload planned in the alternative model was
explained using the tables and figures found in appendix D. Then interviews were
conducted. Responses provided were summarized. The consent forms, questions and
responses of the interviews can be found in appendix B. Information obtained from these
interviews helped validate the applicability of the model and to identify concern areas
they may have about using the alternative process.
3.5 PHASE IV: ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
The main objective of this phase was to determine the time and cost reduction which
might result from removing non-value adding activities of unloading and shakeout from
the structural steel erection process. To achieve this objective the alternative steel
erection process was compared to the traditional process by means of a cost and time
analysis. This analysis was made using the information obtained on the previous phase
about the case study, cost data from RS Means Building Construction Cost Data and
productivity data from the structural steel erection process of a project similar to the case
study project. The steps taken to analyze each process are described below:
0 Step 1: Duration and Cost of the Traditional Process

The activities that impact the cost and duration of the traditional process are:

transportation, unloading, shakeout and erection. The cost of transporting the

pieces of steel was estimated using the actual number of trucks used in the case

study and cost data from RS Means Building Construction Cost Data for the cost

of the truck. Unloading, shakeout and erection cost was estimated using the

52

productivity data of a time study made by Al-Sudairi (2000). In this time study,
Al-Sudairi recorded the time in seconds required to unload, Shakeout and erect
structural beams and columns for three projects with different characteristics. The
productivity data used for the calculations is of a project with similar
characteristics to those of the case study. Productivity units are pieces of steel
(beams or columns) per second. The duration of activities was estimated by
multiplying productivity by the number of pieces. The duration multiplied by the
cost of the crew (including crane) gave the cost of each activity. Finally the cost
and duration of the complete process was determined by adding the cost and
duration of each activity.

Step 2: Duration and Cost of the Alternative Model

The activities affecting the cost and duration of the alternative process are:
Erection order planning (foreman must plan the erection order in the main office),
loading activity planning (time required to plan the loading arrangement of the
structural steel pieces, done by the project manager), shakeout at the Shop,
transportation, and erection. The duration of planning the erection order was
calculated using the time required by the erection foreman to plan the order in
which each piece of steel will be erected. This duration was obtained from the
investigation interviews. Planning the loading activity was estimated using the
actual time spent by the researcher in this activity. With its duration and the
hourly wage paid to the project manager (obtained from RS Means Building
Construction Cost Data) its cost was estimated. The duration and cost of shakeout

at the shop was estimated using the same procedure used in step 1 for the same

53

activity. The cost of the transportation activity was estimated using the same
number of trucks used in the actual case study and cost data from RS Means
Building Construction Cost Data for truck cost. Finally the cost and duration of
the complete process was determined by adding the cost and duration of each
activity.

Step 3: Comparing Processes

This part of the analysis is probably the most important because it helped
determine possible improvements to the process as a result of removing unloading
and shakeout activities from the structural steel erection process. The output of
this analysis helped answer several questions. The estimated improvements to the
process were compared to the extra time and cost required in other preliminary
activities as a result of the alternative process. Advantages, disadvantages,
weaknesses and strengths of each process were discussed using feedback from
interviews and output of the cost and time analysis. Results of these analyses
helped determine possible benefits or losses of applying this lean principle (using

this method) to the steel erection process of a project.

54

CHAPTER 4: THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS

The traditional process model was created based on information from the literature
review, on Site observations, and investigation interviews. It is a description of the
structural steel erection process as performed by the participating company. The
traditional process model illustrates the different steps that take place when erecting
structural steel. Activities performed by the fabricator were included because they are
affected as a result of removing unloading and shakeout activities from the erection
process and erecting structural steel directly fiom the delivery truck.

4.2 ON SITE OBSERVATIONS

The researcher visited the fabrication shop of the participating company with the
objective of observing the fabrication process. The first area of the shop visited was the
materials storage area. In this area, material arriving from the mill is organized and
stored. Once Shop drawings are generated and approved by the designer, the fabricator
can commence fabricating structural steel members. At this time raw steel is transported
into the shop using a conveyor and structural steel members fabricated by cutting,
drilling, shearing, punching, welding and assembling steel as Specified in shop drawings.
In the shop, pieces of steel are divided into heavyweight or lightweight and fabricated in
different areas. Pieces that. are alike are fabricated at the same time even though they
might belong to several different sequences. This practice is considered by the fabricator
to be more cost effective. When the schedule is tight and erection of steel is required as

soon as possible, steel members are fabricated according to erection sequence.

55

After structural steel is fabricated, it is transported to a lay down area where it is
stored. Structural steel is transported to the Site once the location and strength of leveling
plates and anchor rods is verified and the on site crane is all set. Then trailers are loaded
by packing steel as close together as possible with the purpose of transporting more steel
with fewer trucks. Steel is transported according to erection sequence.

The researcher also visited an on site project approximately three times a week
during all the erection phase to get acquainted with the process. Steel was delivered by
sequence after the crane was mobilized and assembled. Once structural steel arrived on
site unloading and shakeout activities took place. Sequences were erected by hoisting
first all the columns and then the primary and secondary beams on each bay of the
sequence. This was similar to case study of Thomas et al. study (1999).

4.3 INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS

The project manager, shipping and delivery foreman and erection foreman of the
participating company were interviewed. Interview questions were developed based on
the fabrication and erection process of a common structural steel frame of a four-story
office building. Questions and paraphrased answers of the investigation interviews can be
found on Appendix A. The interviews were oriented towards obtaining information on
four areas: company and personnel demographics, structural steel erection process
details, observed problem areas and possible solutions in the process, and on erecting
directly from the delivery truck.

Demographic questions referred to company and employee experience, market
niche, and projects executed per year. By means of these questions it was found that the

personnel interviewed has extensive experience in their positions. The selected company

56

has over 50 years fabricating and erecting structural steel. Common projects executed by
this company include office and commercial buildings between two to six stories high
and an average total area of 100,000 square feet.

Questions about the structural steel erection process were included to complement
the information obtained from the on site observations. The questions focused on Specific
details about the erection process. This company fabricates structural steel by sequence
when the schedule is tight and requires erection to commence as soon as possible. A
sequence is a section of the building to be erected. After each piece of steel has been
fabricated they are marked with their piece mark, sequence number and project number.
Labeling of steel members occurs before they are stored in a lay down area according to
erection sequence. Delivery of steel is also made according to erection sequence. Trailers
are loaded first by placing a uniform layer of steel and then by arranging pieces with
similar sections on the other layers. Pieces of steel are packed as close together as
possible so that they can be transported in lowest number of deliveries. Each load of steel
is required to weigh a maximum of 56,000 pounds and has a maximum height from the
ground to the top of steel on the truck of 13 feet and 6 inches. Erection Starts when at
least 40% of the steel members have been fabricated, otherwise the erection crew may
run out of steel to erect. The field general superintendent divides the building into
sequences. On Site, the erection crew foreman plans the order in which each piece of steel
is erected. Each piece is be labeled with this number. This is done on the day or
preceding day for erecting that particular sequence. The erection crew foreman is also in
charge of determining the location where unloading and shakeout will occur. This

decision is based on several factors: availability of space on site, easier maneuverability

57

of the crane, easier unloading of the trucks and faster erection. When more steel pieces
are required on Site, the erection foreman will order them from the Shop.

Some questions about the process also centered on gathering information about
crews, equipment used in the process and normal durations of activities. This data was
used in the cost and time analysis performed in chapter 6. It was established that the crew
used by the participating company to load fabricated pieces of steel on trailers consists of
one crane operator, one 27'/2 ton mobile crane, two ironworkers on the trailer, one
ironworker hooking steel and one shipping and delivery foreman. The shipping and
delivery foreman invests approximately 25 percent of his time in planning the deliveries.
Trailers are loaded in approximately two to three hours with an average of 41,500 pounds
of steel. On site, the erection crew consists of one erection crew foreman, two
ironworkers connecting steel, two ironworkers hooking steel on the ground, one crane
operator and an oiler if required. It takes on average one hour for this crew to unload and
shakeout a truckload of steel. Planning how each Specific piece of steel will be hoisted
takes on average 25 minutes for the erection foreman.

Another set of questions had the purpose of identifying opportunities for
improving the process and possible ways to do it. The personnel interviewed have
extensive experience in their area and their views are valuable. A problem identified by
the project manager and the erection foreman was that the design of the structure is either
incomplete or late changes are made to it that affect the efficiency of the fabrication and
erection process. There were several inefficiencies identified by the shipping and delivery
foreman. One of his concerns was that the pace of the fabrication process was very

irregular. In other words, sometimes the output of fabricated steel varies too much.

58

Having to handle a number of fabricated pieces of steel that differ too much from the
crew capacity is inefficient. Since steel is stored in a yard by sequence (before it is
delivered to a Site), the shipping and delivery foreman also has difficulty handling the
batches of fabricated pieces of steel because they belonged to different sequences. In
addition, he explained that sometimes the sequences are either too big or too small
(number of pieces per sequence). Both situations create problems when handling pieces
of steel. If the sequence is very big, the pieces required on Site may be at the bottom of a
pile. If the sequence is too small, some of the trailers are not loaded to their full capacity.
Finally he said that he does not have enough information about the size of each sequence,
making it difficult to allocate space for each sequence in the lay down area. Possible
solutions to these inefficiencies revealed by the investigation interviews included: start
fabrication and erection activities with a complete and accurate design, fabricate steel
pieces continuously, fabricate according to erection sequence, plan each sequence
uniformly, and make information about the process available.

The last set of questions focused on the creation of the alternative process model.
Areas of concern included: experience using this alternative delivery and erection
method, possible ways of implementing the alternative process and potential problems
and solutions of its implementation. Information gathered from this group of questions is
very similar to the information gathered from the industry survey. For this reason, they
will be discussed in chapter 5.
4.4 THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS MODEL
The traditional process model (figure 8) depicts the activities that are part of fabrication

and erection processes. In addition it illustrates the sequence in which these activities are

59

performed. The traditional process model was created with information obtained from on
Site observations and investigation interviews presented in the two preceding sections.
The traditional process model describes activities in fabrication and erection
processes starting after the conclusion of the detailing process and concluding when
pieces of steel are hoisted and fastened in their final position in the structure. When
required by the schedule, fabrication of structural steel is performed according to erection
sequence. The next activity in the traditional model refers to labeling of structural steel
members with their piece mark, erection sequences and job number. Then Structural steel
is stored on a lay down area according to erection sequence. The following activity
consists of verifying that the location of anchor rods and leveling plates coincides with
what is specified in the plans. After anchor rods and leveling plates are surveyed, steel
pieces are loaded on trailers and delivered to the Site for erection. Steel is not delivered
until the crane has been mobilized and assembled on Site. Once steel arrives on site, the
erection crew foreman decides where unloading and shakeout of structural steel will take
place. The erection foreman will also plan the exact order in which each piece of steel
will be hoisted. After unloading and Shakeout activities 'are done each piece of steel is
marked with the planned erection order. The succeeding activity comprises attaching
chokers to the pieces of steel to be hoisted. Finally, pieces of steel are hoisted to form the

structural frame of the building.

60

TRADITIONAL PROCESS MODEL

 

DETAILIN G PROCESS

O

Fabricate structural steel
according to erection
sequence

0

Label pieces of steel with its
piece mark, erection
sequence, and project
number

0

Store steel according to
erection sequence

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Traditional Structural steel erection process including fabricator activities

61

9?

Verify anchor rods and I
leveling plates location

0

L080 trucks by tightly Mobilize and assemble on site
packing preces of steel crane

0

Deliver structural steel <L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

according to erection
sequence

 

 

 

 

 

 

<1

V

Determine where unloading Determine order in which
and shakeout will take place pieces of steel will be erected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<1

 

 

 

 

Unload structural steel <
(Drivers wait for unloading)

 

 

 

 

.4

Figure 8: Traditional Structural Steel Erection Process including fabricator activities

(Continuation)

62

O

Shakeout steel by spacing
and organizing it according
to erection order

0

Mark pieces of steel with
their erection order

0

Attach chokers to pieces of
steel to be erected

O

Hoist and fasten steel pieces
to their final positions in the
structural steel frame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Traditional Structural Steel Erection Process including fabricator activities

(Continuation)

63

CHAPTER 5: THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS

5.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
This chapter describes how the alternative process model was created. After studying and
mapping the structural steel erection process, the researcher investigated how could
structural steel be erected directly from the delivery truck removing unloading and
shakeout activities. The alternative process model was created based on the output of the
investigation interviews and the survey of fabrication and erection companies. Then key
personnel within the company were interviewed to receive feedback on the alternative
process. Suggestions provided by the interviewees and surveys were used to generate a
revised alternative process model.
5.2 INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS AND THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
In this section, answers to the investigation interviews questions oriented towards the
creation of the alternative process model are presented. Even though the project manager,
shipping and delivery foreman and erection foreman of the participating company
considered that erecting directly from the delivery truck might be possible, they believed
that it may not be feasible. Some of the reasons given included that: in some projects
there might not be access for the trucks close to the structure increasing the hoisting
distance for each piece, more trailers might be required to transport the same amount of
steel, and there would be more time invested in planning the deliveries.

Part of the questions of the investigation focused on identifying what could be the
possible problems encountered when steel pieces were erected from the truck and their

probable solutions. Special consideration areas indicated by the interviewees were:

64

. Loading trucks according to exact erection order might be difficult

. Shapes of steel pieces may vary too much to be loaded on trucks

. Truckloads of steel may be unstable due to the different sizes and weights of steel

pieces

. Placement of chokers might be difficult if pieces are too close

. Fabrication and/or erection mistakes could affect the process
After identifying possible problem areas, interviewees suggested several changes in
fabrication and erection processes to prevent them from occurring. The proposed
solutions included:

. F abricate steel according to erection order

. Transport columns, main beams and secondary beams separately

. Load fewer pieces of steel per trailer

. Standardize building design to improve fabricator and erector productivity

0 Drop the loaded trailers on site and bring back the empty trailers to the Shop

. Store the columns, main beams, secondary beams, and other steel of each

sequence separately

0 Have enough space on storage area to store steel
One of the most important activities in the alternative process is planning how the trailers
will be loaded with structural steel. For this reasons one of the questions in the survey
specifically addressed this situation. The project manager described how to plan the load
of steel for each trailer as follows:

1. Find the erection order and weight of each piece of steel

2. Determine the capacity of each trailer truck

65

3. Determine the number of pieces to be loaded per trailer

4. Load the pieces in reverse order
Other suggestions by the shipping and delivery foreman and the erection foreman about
the load configuration were to Space steel pieces at least 4 inches and to place them with
the web parallel to the truck bed.
5.3 INDUSTRY SURVEY
The main objective of the survey was to explore what changes need to be done to the
traditional process in order to remove the non-value adding activities of unloading and
shakeout from the structural steel erection process and erect steel directly from the
delivery truck. Surveys were sent to the members of the Great Lakes Fabricators and
Erectors Association (GLFEA) and the Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago whose
specialty is either fabrication or erection of structural steel. A total of 56 surveys were
sent from which 10 were returned. Survey questions and responses can be found in
appendix C.

Survey questions had the purpose of collecting information in the following areas:
fabrication and erection company demographics, observed problem areas in the process
and possible solutions, erecting directly from the delivery truck, and on fabrication and
erection processes.

The first group of questions refers to company demographics such as: specialty of
the company, years in business, volume of projects per year, and market niche. The
specialty of eight of the companies is erection of structural steel and two are both
fabricators and erectors of steel. Eighty percent of the participating companies have at

least ten years of experience and execute over fifteen projects per year. The most

66

common type of structure fabricated and/or erected by the survey respondents is the
structural steel frame of buildings generally under Six stories high.

The next set of questions focused on identifying common inefficiencies existing
in the current fabrication and erection processes and how they can be eliminated. Some of
the problems identified by the companies included: incomplete or inaccurate design, late
changes, detailing and fabrication errors, insufficient lay down area, out of sequence
deliveries, inadequate site conditions, and mistakes by the concrete subcontractor in the
placements of anchor rods. At the same time companies were required to suggest possible
solutions to these problems. Some of the recommendations included: standardization of
design drawings, complete design to minimize changes, quality controls, improve
coordination, improve Site conditions, and consider subcontractor input when scheduling
projects.

Another group of questions were directed to identify possible ways of erecting
directly from the delivery truck. They focus on obtaining information about the viability
and feasibility of using this erection method, possible problem areas and solutions when
implementing it, how best to store structural steel before delivery to the site, and how to
load, transport and erect structural steel members when using this alternative method.
Five out of the ten companies have worked on projects were steel was erected directly
from the delivery truck. Ninety percent of the companies considered that it is possible to
use this erection method on site although eighty percent thought it would not be cost
efficient. Some of the reasons for considering this erection method not feasible included:

a. Increased time loading materials in the exact sequence.

b. Truck drivers would be delayed waiting for trailers to be unloaded.

67

c. Limited access for the trucks might increase the cost of the erection process.
(1. Trucks might have to be shipped with less than full loads, requiring more
deliveries. I
The two companies that consider it to be feasible expressed that the extra cost for flat bed
trailers is not expensive compared to reduced labor costs as a result of the time saved
because no unloading and shakeout would be required. In addition, sometimes there is no
Space to unload and shakeout steel on site and erecting directly from the delivery truck is
required.
Other possible weaknesses of erecting directly from the truck pointed out by the
companies were that:
a. Loading trailers in reverse order of erection does not coordinate well with the
fabrication process.
b. Safety issues because truckloads may be unstable and ironworkers will be
hooking steel on them
c. Loading mistakes could cause the entire truckload not to be erectable.
d. Pieces of steel might be loaded on a truck too close together to attach chokers.
At the same time, companies were asked to identify what changes in the current
fabrication and erection process should be made in order to erect directly from the
delivery truck preventing these problems from occurring. Some of the recommendations
given were:
a. Store steel by truckload
b. Load less steel per trailer

c. Consider the erector’s erection order when planning the truckloads

68

Initially, the researcher considered that it might be possible to change the erection
order in which each piece of steel was erected with the objective of improving the
erection process. This Situation was presented in the survey as a question but all
companies responded that they would not change the order.

Based on the investigation interviews and the industry survey it was identified
that the critical activity in the alternative process is loading of steel on trailers. Specific
questions were asked in the survey about how it could be done. Responses were
summarized as follows:

0 Steel must be spaced more than three inches so that ironworkers can attach
chokers efficiently
. Steel pieces must be loaded on trailers with their web in vertical position so that
they can be hoisted in an adequate position for connection
. Dunnage should be placed between each layer of steel
. Load pieces in the exact reverse erection order
5.4 THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS MODEL
Information collected from investigation interviews and the industry survey was used to
create the alternative process model (figure 9). This model illustrates the sequence of
activities to be performed in this new process. Similar to the traditional process model,
the alternative process model describes activities in fabrication and erection processes
starting after the conclusion of the detailing process and concluding when pieces of steel
are hoisted and fastened in their final position in the structure. The alternative model
strives to reduce non-value adding activities from the process. Some of the activities

excluded from this process include unloading, shakeout, and labeling of Steel on site.

69

One of the first activities in the alternative process model is fabrication of
structural steel, which is done in relation to the planned erection sequence. Two activities
concurrent with fabrication are determining the order in which pieces of steel will be
erected on Site and planning how steel pieces will be loaded on trucks. In this model,
these two activities are performed earlier in the process so that steel pieces can be stored
according to truckload to facilitate the loading process. The erection foreman will define
the erection order of each piece in the structure before it is fabricated. Then he will plan
how structural steel will be loaded on trucks. Prior to storage, steel pieces labeled with
their erection order, truckload number, piece mark, erection sequence, and project
number. In contrast to the traditional model two more identifiers are added to each piece:
erection order and truckload number. This practice also eliminates the activity of labeling
steel pieces on site with their erection order as done in the traditional process.

Planning how piece of steel will be loaded on trucks is probably one of the most
important activities in the alternative model. In this new process, steel pieces are placed
with their web perpendicular to the trailer bed so that they can be hoisted in the position
in which they will be connected. In addition, steel pieces are spaced at least 4 inches from
one another to allow the attachment of chokers on Site. Given that the section of the
members on the structure varies too much, each shape of steel will be loaded on separate
trailers in the order in which they will be erected. In this way the truckloads are well
balanced and uniform.

Planning how each piece of steel will be loaded on the trailers is the key in the

process. The success of the complete process depends on the efficacy of this activity. The

70

procedure used in the alternative process model to determine what steel pieces to load on
each trailer is as follows:
1. Collect the following information of each steel piece in the structure: piece mark,
erection order, sequence number, shape, description, length and weight of each
piece.
2. Organize steel pieces according to their erection order.
3. Group similar shapes together maintaining their erection order.
4. Determine to what capacity the trucks will be loaded.
5. Determine how many trailers will be needed to transport a specific shape by
dividing the total weight of the pieces with that particular Shape by the capacity of
the truck.
6. Determine what pieces are to be loaded on each trailer in order to distribute the
load evenly between the trailers to be used for that particular shape.
7. Draw to scale the trailer bed and the section of each steel piece. Place the pieces
of steel in reverse erection order on the truck leaving at least four inches of Space
between each piece.
8. Number the trucks and determine which load has to be sent before a particular
truckload is used up.
Structural steel members are stored according to truckload to facilitate loading activities.
There must be enough space on site available to store pieces in this way.

Similar to the traditional process model, the location of anchor rods and leveling
plates must be verified prior to mobilizing the crane and loading the trucks with structural

steel. Once the site is ready to receive the steel members, the crane is mobilized and steel

71

ALTERNATIVE PROCESS MODEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DETAILING PROCESS

Fabricate structural steel Determine the order in

according to erection which pieces of steel will be

sequence erected

Label pieces of steel with Plan how structural steel

their erection order, will be loaded on trucks for
truckload number, piece delivery. Each shape loaded
mark, erection sequence, on a different truck.

and project number

 

 

 

 

 

 

O

Organize and store steel
according to truckload

i}

Verify that anchor rods and
leveling plates are correctly
positioned on site

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9: Traditional structural steel erection process including fabricator activities

72

 

 

G

 

 

Load trucks in reverse
erection order

 

 

 

 

G

Mobilize and assemble on
site crane

 

 

 

Deliver loaded trailer and
haul back empty trailer
(No idle time for driver)

 

 

 

 

<1

 

 

Attach chokers to pieces of
steel to be erected

 

 

<3

 

 

Hoist and fasten steel pieces
in their positions in the
structural frame

 

 

Figure 9: Traditional Structural Steel Erection Process including fabricator activities

(Continuation)

73

 

pieces can be delivered to the site. In this new process, the idle time of truck drivers is
minimized Since they deliver loaded trailers and haul back the empty ones to the
fabrication Shop to be loaded again. Chokers are then attached to each piece of steel for
erection. As seen on the alternative process model (figure 9b) no unloading and Shakeout
activities are performed on site. As a result, the erection process runs continuously and
workers are not diverted to other activities.

5.5 FEEDBACK INTERVIEWS

Once the traditional and alternative models were created, the project manager, shipping
and delivery foreman, and the erection foreman of the participating company were
interviewed to obtain feedback on the alternative process. Prior to each interview the
researcher explained to them the traditional and alternative process models along with an
explanation of the work performed to produce each one. In addition, drawings of how
each truckload of the case study was organized were presented to them along with an
explanation of the planning process involved. Alter interviewees analyzed this
information several questions were asked about the alternative process. These questions
can be found in appendix B.

The first two questions of the interview were oriented to determining if it was
possible to load and erect steel as described on the alternative process. All the
interviewees answered that it was possible to load and erect steel using this new process.
The third questions was more specific, it asked if the alternative process could have been
implemented in the case study. Again all of them thought it could be achievable.
Question 4 centered on investigating how many of the projects executed by the company

had similar characteristics to those of the case study. Based on their responses it was

74

found that between 10 to 20 percent of the projects executed by the company were
similar to the case study. Most of the projects executed by this company are more
complex than the case study. The project manager and shipping and delivery foreman
added that recently this percentage is going up with the weak economy and most of their
projects are starting to 'be Similar to the case study.

Safety is a big issue in today’s construction industry. For this reason, question 5
specifically addressed if it was safe to transport and erect steel using the alternative
process. All the interviewees thought that it could be safe to use the alternative process.
The project manger and erection foreman were concerned about how safe it was for
ironworkers to be hooking on steel. They explained that in the traditional process the
amount of time that the ironworkers were on the trucks was less than in the alternative
process. Moreover, the spacing of 4 inches between steel pieces to be provided in the
alternative process can make loads of steel unstable. To solve this problem it was
suggested that low bed trailers could be used so that the height of each truckload could be
considerably reduced making it safer for ironworkers. They also suggested that
construction aids such as special scaffolds could be provided so that they could hook steel
safely.

The next two questions (6 and 7) focused on finding out how difficult it is to load
and erect steel using the alternative process when compared to how it is done in the
traditional process. The interviewees said that it would be easier and faster to erect. The
project manager and the Shipping and delivery foreman believed that it could be more
difficult to load since special care is to be taken to provide spacing between each steel

piece.

75

The last four questions of the interview centered on criticizing the alternative
process. Interviewees were asked to point out any problems in the alternative process and
suggest how can they be solved. Although no changes were suggested to the alternative
process, they had several concerns. The Shipping and delivery foreman and erection
foreman explained how most of the projects that the company executes are not similar to
the case study project because that is not their market niche. More projects could be
executed using the alternative process if designs are standardized and simplified. Another
issue addressed by the project manager was that since the alternative process could be
faster, a bigger percentage of the steel should be fabricated in order to keep the pace of
erection activities.

Interviewees expressed that the strength of the alternative erection process is that
double handling of steel members is removed by excluding unloading and shakeout
activities from the process. AS a result, there could be cost and time savings. The
Shipping and delivery foreman said that if the time and cost saved during the erection
process is more than the extra time and cost invested in other activities, the company
could have a competitive advantage over other companies and win more projects when
bidding.

5.6 PROOF OF CONCEPT INTERVIEWS

The main purpose of the proof of concept interviews was to determine what other
members of the steel construction industry might think about the alternative steel erection
process. Until this point the alternative process had only been presented to the

participating fabrication and erection company (although the viewpoints of 10 companies

76

had been considered because of the survey in forming the alternative model). A closer
look at the opinions of the industry was important.

Two fabrication and erection companies were visited and their project managers
interviewed using the questionnaires in appendix B. The companies were selected based
on their specialty, Size and type of projects they execute. The specialty was fabrication
and erection of structural steel because the alternative model was developed for this type
of companies. The researcher chose big companies because they execute a higher number
of projects and as a result have more experience. The companies were also selected based
on the type of projects they executed. A company that had fabricated and erected projects
similar to the case study was important.

The interview process was Similar to the process followed in the feedback
interviews. The alternative Steel erection process was presented to them along with
drawing representing each truckload. Then several questions were asked about the
process.

The companies interviewed were very receptive to the idea of erecting steel
directly from the delivery truck. One of the companies thought that the alternative
process could be implemented successfully in their plant. Unexpectedly, their fabrication
and erection process is such that it supports several ideas presented in this investigation.
For example, steel is fabricated similarly to how it is erected, making it easier to store and
load steel according to erection order. This company was open to new ideas, which they
are continuously trying to implement. Their fabrication process seems to be more
technology based than the other companies visited. The use of computers and aritomated

processes during fabrication was visible.

77

Both of the project managers thought that the alternative process could be
implemented in some projects they executed. They added that in some projects it is
almost required to erect directly from the delivery truck because there is no space to
unload and shakeout steel. With respect to safety, they believed that the alternative
process could be safely implemented.

They considered that it is more difficult and time consuming to load steel in this
way but it is much easier to erect it. “Speed in the field is where real cost savings can be
achieved,” said one of the interviewees. He explained that the onsite costs are
considerably higher than costs at the shop.

A problem observed was that if a change of plans occurs in the field, the
alternative process would not work. In addition, this process might require more space at
the shop to shakeout the steel. Fabrication or Shipping mistakes could bring the complete
erection process to a halt.

Proof of concept interviews suggest that the alternative process could be
implemented not only in the participating company but also in other companies
throughout the steel construction industry.

5.7 BUFFERS

In the alternative steel erection process, special consideration should be given to buffers
of fabricated steel pieces required at the shop and on site. These queues of steel should be
planned so that the complete process runs smoothly and continuously.

One buffer of fabricated steel pieces is required at the shop so that it can be
delivered to the site when required. A second buffer of steel is required on Site for

erection. Some of the factors to consider when sizing the buffers are: the distance

78

between the fabrication shop and the project, traffic, and the rate at which steel is erected.
Steel Should arrive on site some time before it is erected. The person on Site coordinating
steel deliveries should give an order to the shop for the release of the next truckload of
steel. The order in which each truckload of steel will be loaded and delivered Should be
planned before the project starts.

AS the system becomes more efficient, steel Should arrive on site closer to when it
is required. In this case the buffer Size will be reduced to a minimum. The system should
be as predictable as possible. This means that pieces of steel should be erected at a
constant rate. Variability should be removed frOm the system to achieve a continuous
and constant erection rate. Sources of variability to be eliminated include: varying
erection rates, accidents, and mistakes. Some other factors of variability that cannot be

removed include weather and traffic.

79

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this chapter was to estimate the duration and cost of erecting the
structural steel frame of case study using the traditional and alternative erection
processes. The total duration and cost of each process was calculated by adding the
duration and cost of all the activities in each process. The results of these estimates are
then compared and analyzed.

6.2 CASE STUDY

This investigation uses the structural steel frame of a mid rise office building as case
study. The building has four stories with approximately 80,000 square feet of area. It is
90 feet wide and 210 feet long with 30 feet by 30 feet bays. The structural steel frame
weighs approximately 400 tons. The structural steel frame was completed in the year
2003.

Most of the columns and beams in the structure are W shape. All columns are
spliced between the third and fourth floor to facilitate hoisting of steel pieces. The floors
are constructed of metal decking and concrete. Shear studs are used to achieve composite
action between the structural steel members and concrete. The connections in the project
are Simply framed. Exterior walls consist of brick and glass.

The project is located in an urban area and is surrounded by parking lots where
unloading and shakeout of steel is performed. Access to the building Site is provided on
the east Side of the building. A lOO-ton crawler crane with a 160 feet boom and 40 feet

jib was used to erect the structural steel frame.

80

Steel was delivered to the project by trailer trucks. Unloading and Shakeout
activities were part of the erection process. The steel frame was erected in Six sequences.
The crane had to be repositioned after each sequence was hoisted.

6.3 TIME AND COST ANALYSIS

Existing research suggests that erecting steel directly from the delivery truck is the most
efficient erection method (Thomas et al. 1999). Even though this erection method could
be considerably more efficient on site, more time and cost expenses may be incurred in
upstream activities. This section evaluates the duration and cost of the alternative process
by comparing it to the duration and cost of the traditional process when applied to the
chosen case Study.

The duration of the traditional erection process can be calculated by adding the
duration of the following activities: crane set up, unloading, shakeout, and erection of
structural steel. The formulas used to calculate the duration of activities in the process are
illustrated in Table 5. The duration of setting up the on Site crane varies and depends on
the type and crane size used. Unloading, Shakeout, beam erection and column erection
activities are calculated by multiplying the number of members by the time it takes to
perform each operation per member. A summary of these calculations can be seen on
Table 6. The total duration of the traditional steel erection process is then 134.23 hours or
approximately 16.78 days. This duration does not consider any type of delays. But how
realistic is this situation? According to Table 6 calculations, one day is spent setting up

the

81

Table 5: Duration formulas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DURATION FORMULAS
DATA
ACTIVITY FORMULA VARIABLES SOURCE
Crane Set Up DURATION = ESTIMATED N/A 31%”: and 5'“ °f Interviews
NP Number of Pieces Case study
Unloadrng DURA T ION = NP x UC T UCT Unloading cycle Al-Sudairi
time 2000
NP Number of Pieces Case study
Shakeout D URA TION = NP X SCT Shakeout cycle Al-Sudairi
SCT .
trme 2000
Column NC 23::er 0f Case study
ETCCIIOH DURA TION = NC x CECT CE CT Column erection Al-Sudairi
cycle time 2000
NB Number of beams Case study
Beam Erection DURA TION = NB x BE C T . . .
BE CT Beam erection Al-Sudarrr
cycle trme 2000
Table 6: Traditional erection process duration calculations
TRADITIONAL ERECTION PROCESS DURATION
ACTIVITY FORMULA UNITS VARIABLES (HRS)
Crane e 100 ton
Crane Set Up DURA TION = ESTIMA TED MA and 5316’ crawler 3.00
crane
Pieces NP 744
Unloading DURA TION = NP x UC T 20.87
Sec/piece UCT 101
Pieces NP 744
Shakeout DURA T 1 ON = NP x SC T 14.05
Sec/piece SCT 68
Column Pieces NC 64
. = 7.82
ETCCUO“ DURA TION NC X CECT Sec/piece CECT 440
Pieces NB 680
Beam Erection DURA TION = NB x BEC T 83.49
Sec/piece BECT 442
TOTAL DURATION (HRS) 134.23

 

 

82

 

 

on site crane and the rest of the time days is spent erecting structural steel. That means
that approximately 47 pieces of steel are erected daily. Based on the information gathered
from investigation interviews with the erection foreman, the erection crew erects on
average 50 pieces of steel per day, which is close to the result obtained from the
calculations. In addition, according to Means Construction Cost Data 2004 a crane can
handle on average 45 pieces of steel per day.

The duration of the alternative structural steel erection process is equal to the time
it takes to set up the on site crane plus the duration of erecting steel pieces. Note that
unloading and shakeout activities are excluded from this process. Table 7 summarizes the
calculations made to determine the duration of the alternative erection process. The
alternative erection process duration is 12.41 days. This is about 4.37 days faster than the

traditional erection process or a 26% reduction in duration.

Table 7:Altemative erection process duration calculations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALTERNATIVE ERECTION PROCESS DURATION
ACTIVITY FORMULA UNITS VARIABLES (3315‘)
Crane 100 ton
Crane Set Up DURA T I ON 2 ES T [MA TED N/A type crawler 8.00
and size crane
' Pieces NC 64
$32ng DURA TION = NC x CECT 7.32
Sec/piece CECT 440
- Pieces NB 680
Beam Erection DURATION = NB x BE C T 83.49
Sec/piece BECT 442
TOTAL DURATION (HRS) 99.31

 

 

 

83

Table 8: Cost analysis formulas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COST ANALYSIS F ORMULAS
DATA
ACTIVITY FORMULA VARIABLES
SOURCE
Duration of
Erection Order DEOP erection order Interviews
. COST = DEOP x EFC planning
Planning .
EFC Erectron foreman Means cost
cost data 2004
.. DLP Duration of loading Estimate
Loading planning
Activity COST = DLP x SDF C Shipping and
Planning SDFC delivery foreman Interviews
cost
NTK Number of trucks Case study
Duration of
Truck Rental COST = NT K x DE x T KC DE erection Case Smdy
Means cost
TKC Truck cost data 2004
NTL Number of trailers Case study
Trailer Rental COST = NTL x DE x TLC DB 323:3," °f Case study
. Means cost
TLC Trailer cost data 2004
NT Number of trips Case study
Driver Time COST = NT X DT X DC DT Duration per trip Case study
DC Driver cost Case study
NP Number of pieces Case study
Driver Idle COST = NP x UCT x DC UCT Unloadrng cycle Al-Sudarrr
Trme trme 2000
. Means cost
DC Driver cost data 2004
NP Number of pieces Case Study
Unloadin c cle Al-Sudairi
unloading COST = NP X UCT X ECC UCT time g y 2000
. Means cost
ECC Erectron crew cost data 2004
NP Number of Pieces Case Study
_ Shakeout cycle Al-Sudairi
Shakeout COST — NP x SC T X E C C SCT time 2000
. Means cost
ECC Erectron crew cost data 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

 

Table 8: Cost Analysis Formulas (Continued)

 

COST ANALYSIS FORMULAS

 

 

 

DATA
ACTIVITY FORMULA VARIABLES SOURCE
NC Number Of Case study
columns
Column COST = NC X CEC T X ECC CECT Column erection Al-Sudairi
Erection c cle time 2000
Y

 

. Means cost
ECC Erectron crew cost data 2004

 

NB Number of beams Case study
COST = N3 x BECT x ECC BECT Beam erection Al-Sudairi

 

 

Beam Erectron cycle time 2000
. Means cost
ECC Erectron crew cost data 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next step is to calculate the cost of each process. The activities in the
traditional and alternative process models were estimated using the formulas from Table
8. This table includes a definition of each variable and the source of the data used to
define each variable.

Prior to using the formulas on Table 8 some variables had to be calculated. These
variables were the number of trucks used on the alternative process, erection crew cost,
and loading crew cost.

To calculate the number of trucks used on the alternative process the researcher
planned how the steel should be loaded on each trailer using the guidelines at the end of
section 5.4. Appendix D has the results of this activity including a list of the pieces to be
loaded on each truck and an AutoCAD drawing of each truckload. A total of 29
truckloads were required to transport structural steel for the project using the traditional

erection process and 20 truckloads are required on the alternative process. Based on the

85

case study, the use of fewer truckloads in the alternative process could be attributed to
two factors. First, there is no piece per truckload planning. The loading crew loads each
trailer based on the sequence being shipped and their experience on how to stack steel
pieces together. As a result, loading patterns for each trailer varies considerable and there
is less control on the weight of each truckload. Second, each shipment of steel consists of
pieces with varying cross sections. This situation makes it difficult to stack as much steel
as possible on each truckload.

Even though fewer truckloads may be required on the alternative process, more
trailers are needed. 2 tractor trucks with 5 trailers were used to transport structural steel
on the traditional and 2 tractor trucks with 7 trailers are needed on the alternative process.
The use of more trailers in the alternative process is due to the different depths of
members that form the frame. In this process, only steel pieces with similar depth are
loaded per truckload. If pieces of steel were more standardized fewer trailers would be
needed reducing the cost of the erection process.

The loading crew consists of a Shipping and delivery foreman (based on the
interviews only 25% of his time is dedicated to loading trailers), 1 crane operator, 2
workers on the trailer, and l worker hooking steel. The crane used to load the steel is a 27
V2 ton mobile crane. On Site, the erection crew consisted of l erection foreman, 1 crane
operator, 1 oiler, 2 ironworkers connecting steel, and 2 ironworkers hooking steel. Table
9 is a summary of the costs for each crew including overhead and profit. Costs include
overhead and profit as provided in Means Construction Cost Data 2004. A 10% overhead

and profit was added to daily equipment rental cost.

86

From Table 9 it can be seen that the erection crew cost is more than 200% of the
shipping crew cost. Some of the reasons are:
0 The Shipping crew has 1 ironworker and loiler less than the erection crew.
o The cost of each member of the shipping crew is less than cost of each member on
the erection crew.
0 The crane used by the shipping crew is smaller and has a lower cost than the crane

used by the erection crew.

Table 9: Crew cost calculations (Cost data from RS Means Building Construction Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data 2004)
WORKER TOTAL
3 . DESCRIPTION WORKERS COST PER COST PER
2 DAY DAY
U . . .
E Eggfg‘fgfi‘mgg’mm mea“ 1 400.00 100.00
'5: Crane Operator 1 400.00 400.00
2 Workers 3 400.00 1200.00
5 33 ton mobile crane 1 720.00 720.00
TOTAL COST INCLUDING O&P (S/DAY) 2420.00
Erection Foreman 1 561.20 561.20
2 Crane Operator 1 419.20 419.20
2 3 Oiler 1 352.00 352.00
S g Ironworkers 4 532.40 2129.60
2 U 100 Ton Crawler Mounted 1 2035.00 2035.00
Crane
TOTAL COST INCLUDING 0&P (S/DAY) 5497.00

 

After determining equipment and labor cost used on each process, the costs of

each activity was calculated using Table 8 formulas. Tables 10 and 11 are a summary of

87

cost calculations of the traditional and alternative processes. Cost of each activity
includes overhead and profit as provided in Means Construction Cost Data 2004. A 10%
overhead and profit was added to daily equipment rental cost.

After adding the cost of each process it was found that the alternative erection
process costs 22,505 dollars less than the traditional erection process. This represents
almost a 20% reduction in cost. This reduction in cost can be attributed to several
factors:

0 No unloading or shakeout activities

0 More trips resulting in more hours worked by drivers

0 No truck drivers idle time

0 Less cost to Shakeout steel on the shop
The 26 % reduction in duration and 20% reduction in cost achieved by the alternative
steel erection process is a major competitive advantage when bidding a project. As a
result, the company can execute more projects of this type. In addition, the company

overhead can be distributed over more projects lowering costs.

88

Table 10: Traditional Process Cost Analysis

 

TRADITIONAL PROCESS CALCULATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACT FORMULA UNITS VARIABLES COST (SL

Trucks NTK 2

Tmcks COST = NTK x DE x TKC Days DE 17 9996.00
S/day TKC 294.00
Trailers NTL 5

Trailers COST = NTL x DE X TLC Days DE 17 13345.00
S/day TLC 157.00
Trips NT 29

$51? COST = NT x DT x DC Hours or 3 4350.00
$/hour DC 50.00
Pieces NP 744

33:” Idle COST = NP x UCT x DC Sec/piece UCT 101 1043.67
$/day DC 400.00
Pieces NP 744

Unloading COST = NP X UCT x EC C Sec/piece UCT 101 14342.59
$/day ECC 5497.00
Pieces NP 744

Egg?” COST = NP x SCT x ECC Sec/piece scr 68 9656.40
$/day ECC 5497.00
Pieces NC 64

Column COST = NCX CECTX ECC . 5374.80

Erectron Sec/piece CECT 440
$/day ECC 5497.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

Table 10: Traditional Process Cost Analysis (Continued)

 

TRADITIONAL PROCESS CALCULATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACT FORMULA UNITS VARIABLES COST (§)_
Pieces NB 680
1363111 COST = NB x BECTX ECC Sec/piece BECT 442 57367.30
FCCtIOIl
$/day ECC 5497.00
TOTAL ERECTION COST 115,475.76
Table 11: Alternative Process Cost Analysis
ALTERNATIVE PROCESS CALCULATIONS
ACT FORMULA UNITS VARIABLES COST 152

Erection Hours DEOP 3
Order COST = DEOPX EFC 210.45
Planning $/hr EFC 70.15
Loading Hours DLP 8
Activity COST = DLP x SDF C 400.00
Planning S/hr SDFC 50.00
Trucks Trucks NTK 2
(Includin
operator} COST = NTK x DE x TKC Days DE 13 7644.00
@ SOS/hr)

$/day TKC 294.00

Pieces NP 744
Shake“ COST = NP x SCT x ECC Sec/piece SCT 68 4251-13
on Shop

$/day SCC 2420.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

Table 11: Alternative Process Cost Analysis (Continued)

 

ALTERNATIVE PROCESS CALCULATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACT FORMULA UNITS VAMABLES COST (S)
Trailers NTL 7
$/ day TLC l 57.00
Trips NT 20
23:” COST = NT x DT x DC Hours DT 3 3000.00
$/hour DC 50.00
Pieces NC 64
Column COST = NCXCECTX ECC 537480
Erection Sec/piece CECT 440 '
S/day ECC 5497.00
Pieces NB 680
Erection
$/day ECC 5497.00
TOTAL ERECTION COST 92,534.68

 

 

91

 

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 RESEARCH SUMMARY

The main goal of this investigation was to study the viability of removing non-value
adding activities of unloading and shakeout from the structural steel erection process as
suggested by the lean production philosophy. In order to remove unloading and shakeout
from the erection process steel must be erected directly from the delivery truck. Thomas
et a1. (1999) investigated different erection methods and concluded that erecting steel
directly from the delivery truck was the most efficient erection method. To implement
this erection method several changes need to be made to upstream activities that impact
the duration and cost of the erection process. These changes were not addressed in
Thomas’ study. This research explored how could steel be erected directly from the
delivery truck and estimated the impact these changes had in the cost and duration of the
structural steel erection process.

The objectives of this investigation were:

—‘
0

Investigate and analyze how the structural steel erection process is performed,
from fabrication to erection on site.

2. Create a process model of the structural steel erection process from storage of
structural steel on the fabricator’s yard to their erection on site. (Traditional

Model)

3. Create an alternative process model without unloading and shakeout activities.

(Alternative Model)

4. Determine the viability of implementing the alternative model.

92

5. Estimate the improvements in time and cost of the structural steel erection process
that result from removing unloading and shakeout activities.
6. Provide recommendations to the steel construction industry based on the findings
of this investigation.

The objectives of this investigation were achieved through the four phases of this
investigation. On phase 1, available research on lean production, lean construction, and
structural steel erection was compiled and analyzed. Then, on phase II, a model of the
traditional erection process was created. The traditional model was created in four steps.
First, a company was selected to participate in the investigation. Next, their fabrication
and erection processes were studied. Then, the project manager, shipping and delivery
foreman, and the erection foreman of the company were interviewed to obtain technical
information on their erection process and on how can the alternative process be
developed. Based on the information gathered on this phase from on site observations and
interviews, the traditional process model was created. Phase III consisted on producing an
alternative process model with the non-value adding activities of unloading and shakeout.
With the objective of gathering information from the steel construction industry to
develop the alternative process a survey was sent to fabrication and erection companies
members of the Great Lakes Fabricators and Erectors and the Associated Steel Erectors
of Chicago. Then the alternative process model was based on information gathered in the
investigation interviews and industry survey. Feedback on this new process was obtained
by having a second interview with personnel interviewed originally. Questions were
oriented towards determining the viability of the alternative process and to identify areas

of concern. Phase IV, the final phase of this investigation focused on determining what is

93

the time and cost impact that removing unloading and shakeout processes had in other
activities.

7.2 RESEARCH CONCLUSION

As economies weaken and the construction industry has become more competitive,
researchers and practitioners are pushing to improve construction process stronger and
stronger. One of these movements is trying to adapt the lean production philosophy to
construction. This investigation explored how the lean principle of removing non-value
adding activities can be implemented in the structural steel erection process and estimated
what were the possible improvements as a result of its implementation. Through this
research it was found that it is possible to remove the non-value adding activities of
unloading and shakeout from the erection process. Based on the results of this
investigation it can be concluded that this lean principle could considerably improve the
performance of construction process.

Special care should be taken so that production systems are improved as a whole.
Improvement of individual activities does not always lead to overall improvement of the
process. In this investigation, the removal of unloading and shakeout activities from the
steel erection process created non-value adding shakeout activities on the shop. For this
reason shakeout activities in the shop were also considered during the time and cost
analysis.

The alternative process could be applied to projects similar to the case study were
complexity is moderate. In these cases unloading and shakeout activities are non-value
adding idle activities that can be removed from the process. For more complex projects, it

would be more difficult to remove unloading and shakeout. This means that these

94

activities can be categorized as non-value adding contributory activities because they are
necessary for the process.

It was estimated that implementing the alternative process results in a 26%
reduction in duration and almost a 20% reduction in cost of the process. There are several
reasons for the alternative process being more cost effective. One reason is that the
erection crew realizes productive work nearly uninterruptedly. That means that there is
no double handling of steel members on site during unloading and shakeout activities.
Moreover, there is no time spent in transition from erection activities to unloading and
shakeout. There is also no on site time utilized planning and setting up for unloading and
shakeout activities. Another reason is that shakeout activities occur in a controlled
environment. The crew used in the fabrication shop is more cost efficient because the size
of the crew and equipment is smaller and has a lower cost. In addition, it takes fewer
deliveries to transport steel and truck drivers have no idle time waiting for truckloads to
be unloaded.

It was also found that the lowest weight per square feet of construction area is not
always the most cost efficient way of designing buildings, what needs to be considered is
dollars per square feet. There are several other issues that need to be addressed.
Considerable savings could be possible if structural members of a steel frame are made
more uniform. Like members cost less to detail, fabricate, transport and erect. If pieces of
steel are similar, it will take fewer drawings. Fewer drawings take less time to review
during the approval process and minimize the possibility of mistakes during detailing and
fabrication. From the case study project we can conclude that like pieces also enhance

the efficiency of transportation and erection activities.

95

There was special concern about the safety of the ironworkers hooking steel on
the trucks. Special construction aids might be required to improve safety while using the
alternative steel erection model. One possibility might be to use low bed trailers to reduce
the height of each truckload.

This study was based on three hypotheses:

1. Unloading and shakeout have a hindering effect in the overall efficiency of the
structural steel erection process.
2. It is possible to remove unloading and shakeout from the structural steel erection
process.
3. By removing the non-value adding activities of unloading and shakeout the
duration and cost of the complete process will be reduced.
These hypotheses are proven true on types of projects with characteristics similar to the
case study. In more complex projects, unloading and shakeout activities might be
required due to the irregularity of steel pieces.
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this investigation several recommendations for the industry were
formulated. These recommendations refer to the applicability of lean principles,
applicability of the alternative process, importance of site layout, safety issues and
constructability issues.

Considerable improvements could be achieved by using lean principles in the

structural steel erection process. It was estimated that removing non-value adding

activities from the structural steel construction process could result in a 26% reduction in

96

duration and almost a 20% reduction in cost of the process. Erection and fabrication
companies should consider the use of this core lean principle to enhance their processes.

Construction processes may vary between fabrication and erection companies.
The alternative process should be evaluated for a particular company before it can be
used. The projects were the alternative process can be used must be similar to the case
study project.

Planning the site layout is important in the structural steel erection process. When
using the alternative erection process the location where the tucks are to be located and
access points to those locations has to be carefully planned.

Although areas of concern with respect to safety were identified in this
investigation they were not specifically addressed. Appropriate safety measures should be
taken for the ironworkers hooking steel. This situation must be evaluated before using the
alternative erection process. '

Design and construction companies should work to improve the efficiency of the
complete process. Buildings that are easier to build can result in great savings for owners
and a valuable competitive advantage for construction companies. Construction issues
should be addressed during the design phase of every project. In this sense, the use of
cross-functional teams could be very advantageous.

7.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

To improve the structural steel erection process, some changes were made to storage and
delivery activities. The fabricator has to invest extra time and resources in order for the
erector to be more efficient. Further investigation will be required to assign possible

benefits of this study if the fabricator and erector are different organizations. In this sense

97

a limitation of this research is that the new alternative process is primarily applicable to a
company that both fabricates and erects steel for a given project.

The characteristics of structural steel frames may vary considerably. For this
reason another limitation of this investigation is that the alternative process is primarily
applicable to projects with similar characteristics of the case study. The possibility of
using the alternative to the erection process of structural steel frames with different
characteristics needs to be investigated.

Fabrication and erection processes are performed differently throughout the steel
construction industry. That is why an additional limitation of this study is that it focuses
on one company’s specific process.

The information gathered during investigation, feedback and proof of concept
interviews only focused on medium to large fabrication and erection companies. These
companies all worked with union workers, which could be more skilled than other
companies working with non-union workers.

7.5 AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH

There are different possible areas of future research associated with this investigation.
The lean principle of removing non-value adding activities could be taken to the
fabrication shop. The complete fabrication process can be mapped using the methodology
presented in this research. The existence of waste (non-value adding activities) was made
visible when personnel within the company Were asked about inefficiencies in the
process. The shipping and delivery foreman explained that the work flow of the
fabrication process is very irregular causing several problems to storage and

transportation activities. Steel was either fabricated in big or small batches that were hard

98

to handle by the shipping and delivery crew. In addition, steel is fabricated without
considering its erection sequence increasing the handling cost. Another problem is that
there is no information about the size of sequences making it difficult for the foreman to
assign an area for each sequence.

Greater improvements could be possible if shakeout activities could be removed
completely from the process by fabricating structural steel following the exact erection
order. Fabricators explain that fabricating like pieces at the same time without
considering the sequence is a cost efficient way of fabricating steel. This situation is
founded on the inflexibility of the equipment used. If the equipment was more flexible,
fabricating according to erection order might not be that difficult.

This investigation did not consider the extra area required on the shop for the
implementation of the alternative process. Future research could investigate the area
required on the shop for the alternative process to be able to operate.

A critical factor to be considered when employing the alternative steel erection
process is the complexity of the structural steel frame. Investigations could determine the
characteristics of steel members required to erect directly from the delivery truck. These
characteristics can then be considered when designing the structural steel frame of
buildings. Standardizing design might result in more weight per area but it might also
result in cost savings during detailing, fabrication, transportation and erection activities.

The alternative steel erection process requires good communication and
coordination between fabricators and erectors. For this reason the company chosen for
this research is a fabrication and erection company. The common practice in the industry

is that the fabricator subcontracts the erection side of the job. In this sense, another

99

possible area of future research involves determining which organizational structure is
more cost efficient. Different organization can be studied to quantify their efficiencies to

establish which organizational structure is more effective.

100

REFERENCES

101

REFERENCES

Al-Sudairi, Abdulsalam A. (2000). Evaluation of Construction Processes: Traditional
Practices Versus Lean Principles. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Colorado.

American Institute of Steel Construction (2000). Detailer Training Series. Module 1, pp.
2: Movie. (Multi-media CD ROM).

Ballard, G. (1999). “Improving Work Flow Reliability”. Proceedings of the 7"1
International Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-7, 26-28 July,
Berkeley, California, USA.

Ballard, G. (2000)a. Lean Project Delivery System. Lean Construction Institute White
Paper #8. Available at http://www.leanconstruction.org/. September.

Ballard, G. (2000)b. The Last Planner System of Production Control. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Birmingham. Available at: http://www.leanconstruction.org/. May.

Bell, L., Stukhart, G. (1987). “Costs and Benefits of Materials Management Systems”.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 222-234.

Burati, J., Farrington, J., Ledbetter, W. (1992). “Causes of Quality deviations in Design
and Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. 118,
No. 1, pp. 34-39.

Constructability, a Primer. 1986. C11 Publications 3-1.

Eraso, M. (1995). Methodology for the Economic Assessment of Construction
Innovations: Simulation of Structural Steel Erection. Master Thesis, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Leigh University, Bethlehem, PA.

Hammarlund, Y., Josephson, P. (1991). Sources of Quality Failures in Building. Paper
1991 :1, Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Building Economics and
Construction Management.

Koskela, L. (1992). Application of a New Production Philosophy to Construction. CIF E
Technical Report #72. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering. Department of
Civil Engineering. Stanford University.

Koskela, L. (1993). Lean Production in Construction. Proceedings of the 10’”
International Symposium of Automation and Robotics in Construction, ISARC-IO,
24-26 May, Houston, Texas, USA. pp. 47-54.

102

Levitt, R., Samelson, N. (1987). Construction Safety Management. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, N.Y., pp. 218.

Levy, SM. (1990). Japanese Construction: An American Perspective. Van nostrand
Reinhold, New York, USA. pp. 413.

Mrozowski, T., Syal, M., Kakakhel, S. (1999). Construction Management of Steel
Construction. American Institute of Steel Consrtuction. Chicago, IL.

Muehlhausen, Frederick B. (1991). “Construction Site Utilization: Impact of Material
Movement and Storage on Productivity and Cost”. American Association of Cost
Engineers Transactions, pp. L.2.1- L.2.9.

Oglesby, C. H., Parker, H. W., Howell, G.H. (1989). Productivity Improvement in
Construction. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. pp. 588.

RS Means Building Construction Cost Data 2004. 62'"d Edition. Construction Publishers
and Consultants. Kingston, Massachusetts.

Thomas, H. R., Napolitan, C. L. (1995) “Quantitative Effects of Construction Changes on
Labor Productivity”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Vol.
121, No. 3, September, pp. 290-296.

Thomas, H. R., Riley, D. R., Sanvido, V.E. (1999). “Loss of Labor Productivity due to
Delivery Methods and Weather”. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 125, No. 1, January/February, pp. 39-46.

Tommelein, I. D., Riley, D. Howell G. A. (1998). “Parade Game: Impact of Work Flow
Variability on Succeeding Trade Performance”. Proceedings of the 6’” International
Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-6, 13-15 August, Guaruja, Brazil.

Tommelein, I. D., Weissenberger , M. (1999). “More Just In Time: Location of Buffers in
Structural Steel Supply and Construction Processes”. Proceedings of the 7”
International Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-7, 26-28 July,
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, pp. 109-120

Womack, J., Jones, D. (1996). Lean Thinking. New York, NY, USA, Simon & Schuster.

Womack, J ., Jones, D., Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World: The Story
of Lean Production. New York, NY, USA, Harper Collins Publishers.

103

GENERAL REFERENCES

Ballard, G. (1997). “Lookahead Flaming: The Missing link in Production Control”.
Proceedings of the 6

Ballard, G., Howell, G. (1995). “Toward Construction Just In Time”. Proceedings of the
1995 ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management,
Sheffield, England.

Ballard, G., Howell, G. (1998). “What Kind of Production is Construction?” Proceedings
of the 5“ International Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-S, July,
Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Ballard, G., Koskela, L., Howell, G., Zabelle, T. (2001). Production System Design:
Work Structuring Revisited. Lean Construction Institute White Paper #11. Available
at: http://www.leanconstruction.org/. January.

Ballard, G., Tommelein, I. (1998). Aiming for Continuous F low. Lean Construction
Institute White Paper #3. Available at: http://www/leanconstruction.orgl. March.

Howell, G. (1999). “What is Lean Construction”. Proceedings of the 7’” International
Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-7, 26-28 July, Berkeley, California,
USA.

Howell, G., Alexander, L., Ballard, G. (1993). “Interaction Between Subcycles - One
Key to Improved Methods”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
Vol. 119, No. 4, pp. 714-728.

Howell, G., Ballard, G. (1994). “Lean Production Theory: Moving Beyond Can-Do”.
Proceedings of the 2"“ International Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-
2, September, Santiago, Chile.

Howell, G., Ballard, G. (1999). Design of Construction Operations. Lean Consstruction
Institute White Paper #4. Available at http://www.leanconstruction.org/. January,
Portland, Oregon, USA.

Howell, G., Koskela, L. (2000). “Reforming Project Management: The Role of Lean
Construction”. Proceedings of the 8“ Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, IGLC-8, July 17-19, Brighton, UK.

Kagioglou, M., Lee, A., Cooper, R., Carmichael, S., Aouad, G. (2002). “Mapping the

Production Process: A Case Study”. Proceedings of the 10’” International Group for
Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-lO, August, Gramado, Brazil.

104

Koskela, L. (1999). “Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View”.
Proceedings of the 7'” International Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-
7, 26-28 July, Berkeley, California, USA.

Koskela, L., Vrijhoef, R. (2000). “The Prevalent Theory of Construction is a Hindrance
for Innovation”. Proceedings of the 8” International Group for Lean Construction
Conference, IGLC-8, July 17-19, Brighton, UK.

Riley, D. R., Sanvido, V.E. (1995). “Patterns of Construction-Space Use in Multistory
Buildings”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 121, No. 4,
December, pp. 464-473.

Sakamoto, M., Horman, M.J., Thomas, HR. (2002). “A Study of the Relationship
Between Buffers and Performance in Construction”. Proceedings of the 10'”
International Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-lO, August, Gramado,
Brazil.

Tarn, C.M., Tong, T.K., Leung, A.W., Chiu, G.W. (2002). “Site Layout Planning using
Nonstructural Fuzzy Decision Support System”. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 128, No. 3, June, pp. 220-231

Thomas, H.R., Horman, M.J., Lemes de Souza, U.E., Zavrski, I. (2002). “Reducing
Variability to Improve Project Performance as a Lean Construction Principle”.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128, No. 2, April, pp.
144-154.

Thomas, R.H., Sanvido, V.E. (2000). “Role of the Fabricator in Labor Productivity”.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126, No. 5,
September/October, pp. 358-365.

Thomas, R.H., Sanvido, V.E., Sanders, SR. (1989). “Impact of Material Management on
Productivity — A Case Study”. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 115, No. 3, September, pp. 370-384.

Thomas, R.H., Zavrski, I. (1999). “Construction Baseline Productivity: Theory and
Practice” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125, No. 5,
September/October, pp. 295- 303.

Tommelein, Iris D. (1998). “Pull-Driven Scheduling for Pipe-Spool Installation:

Simulation of a Lean Construction Technique”. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 124, No. 4, July/August, pp. 1-12.

105

Tsao, C., Tommelein, I., Swanlund, E., Howell, G. (2000). “Case Study for Work
Structuring: Installation of Metal Door Frames”. Proceedings of the 8’h1nternational
Group for Lean Construction Conference, IGLC-8, July 17-19, Brighton, UK.

Zabelle, T., Ballard, G. (1999). F low Driver. Lean Construction Institute White Paper #6.
Available at: http://www.leanconstruction.org/, July.

Zouein, Pierrette Pierre (1996). MoveSchedule: A Planning T 001 for Scheduling Space
Use on Construction Sites. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

106

APPENDICES

107

APPENDIX A

108

INSTRUCTION SHEET READ BY INTERVIEWEES PRIOR TO

INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS

 

 

Application of Lean Principles to the
Structural Steel Erection Process
Investigation Interviews

Our research group is investigating ways of improving the structural steel erection
process through a research titled “Application of Lean Principles to the Structural
Steel Erection Process”. The research is being conducted under the direction of
Professor Tim Mrozowski in the Construction Management Program at Michigan
State University. As part of a fabrication and erection company your knowledge,
views and opinions are important to us. Your responses will help us understand
how the structural steel erection process is performed by your organization and
how certain lean construction principles might apply. Questions should be
answered based on the fabrication and erection process of a common structural
steel frame of a four-story office building.

Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all, may
refuse to answer certain questions, or may discontinue answering the
questionnaire at any time without penalty. You indicate your voluntary agreement
to participate by attending the interviews and responding the questions. Your
name will not be used in any reporting of the research. Your answers may be
reported in paraphrased form and generally aggregated with others. Your privacy
will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The interview should
take about 30 minutes.

 

If you have any questions regarding If you have any questions or concerns
this survey or wish to make regarding your rights as a subject of
suggestions please contact: this research please contact:

Professor Tim Mrozowski Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Construction Management Program Chair of UCRIHS

212 Farrall Hall 202 Olds Hall

E. Lansing, M148824 E. Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 353-0781 Phone: (517) 355-2180

E-mail: mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

109

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS QUESTIONS

(PROJECT MANAGER)

. How many years of experience do you have in your current position?

How many years has your company been a structural steel fabricator and erector?
What would be the average characteristics of the most common structural frame your
company builds (Tons, use of building, fabrication cost, area (SF), erection cost,
stories high)?

Approximately how many projects does your company execute per year?

How are structural steel members fabricated (sequence, level, erection order, heavy or
light weight pieces, nothing specific, other)?

When and how are steel pieces marked before they are delivered to the site?

How is structural steel stored on the yard before delivery (sequence, level, erection
order, heavy or light weight pieces, nothing specific, other)?

Approximately what percentage of the structural steel members have to be fabricated
before erection can start?

Approximately what percentage of projects is all structural steel fabricated before
erection starts?

Who decides the erection order of the structural steel pieces?

When is the erection order decided? Who decides it?

What wages are usually paid to the members of the erection crew (prevailing wages,
union wages, non-union or prevailing wages)?

What is the most common crane (type, capacity, boom, etc.) used to erect structural

steel on site?

110

14.

15.

16.

17.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

What are the most common inefficiencies or problems in the fabrication and/or
erection process?

How would you solve these inefficiencies or problems?

Approximately what percentage of the projects has your company erected steel pieces
directly from the truck (without unloading and shakeout)? Explain.

What do you think would be the problems of erecting steel directly from the truck?
Do you think that given the adequate conditions it would be possible to erect directly
from the truck?

Do you think it is economically feasible to erect structural steel directly from the
delivery truck? Why?

What would be the major problems of erecting steel directly from the truck?

What changes in your current fabrication and erection practices will need to be made
to erect directly from the truck and solve these problems?

How should structural steel members be loaded on trailers in order to erect directly
from the delivery truck?

What is the approximate area available on the yard for storage of fabricated steel prior
to its delivery?

Who has the duty of coordinating structural steel deliveries?

If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck, would you change

the order in which pieces of steel will be erected to improve transportation?

111

Table 12: Investigation interviews responses A

 

QUESTION
NUMBER

RESPONSES

 

11 Years

 

52 Years

 

Office and commercial buildings, 1.5 million dollars (fabrication and erection),
100,000 square feet, and 2-6 stories high

 

10-15 projects per year

 

1f schedule is tight it is done by sequence, otherwise it is done by like pieces

 

After each piece of steel has been fabricated it is marked with its piece mark,
sequence number and job number

 

By sequence

 

If fabrication is by sequence, at least 40 percent of the steel must be fabricated

 

\OQQQUI-BMN

Less than 10 percent

 

The field general superintendent plans the sequences if it is not specified by the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 customer, but the order in which each piece is erected is decided by the
erection foreman
11 On site and within a day of erecting that sequence by the erection foreman
12 Union wages
13 100 ton crawler crane
14 Late changes to the design of the structure
15 Out of our control
16 None
a. The shapes of steel pieces may vary too much to be loaded on trucks
17 b. It is difficult to load the trailers with respect to an exact order
c. It is not safe to erect steel directly from the truck because truck loads might
be unstable
18 Yes
No,
19 a. In some projects there is no access for the trailers to the designated place
from which hoisting steel might be more efficient
b. Trailers may not be loaded to their full capacity having to use more trailers
20 See 17
a. Fabrication of steel should be done according to exact erection order, which
21 is less economical
b. Load less pieces of steel on the truck
a. Determine the capacity of the truck
22 b. Find the erection order and weight of the steel pieces
c. Determine the pieces to be loaded on trucks
d. Load the steel pieces in reverse order
23 16,000 square feet
24 Erection foreman together with the shipping and delivery foreman
25 No

 

 

112

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

(SHIPPING AND DELIVERY FOREMAN)

. How many years of experience do you have in your current position?

Describe the crew used for loading structural steel members onto trailers.

What is the regular job of each member of this crew (when not loading trucks)?

What equipment is used to load structural steel members onto trailers?
Approximately what percentage of the time is the equipment being used?

What are the most common inefficiencies or problems in the fabrication and/or
erection process?

How would you solve these inefficiencies or problems?

What is the procedure used to load structural steel onto trailers?

How is structural steel loaded on trailers (side-by-side, interlaced, spaced)?

What are the regulations that apply to transportation of structural steel (weight and
size)?

What are the characteristics of one truckload of structural steel (weight and size)?
What is the specification of the trucks used to deliver steel?

How many trucks does your company own?

How many trucks are used to deliver steel?

On average how much time does it take to load a truck with structural steel
(minutes)?

In what order is structural steel delivered to the site (according to sequences, levels,

erection order, heavy or light weight pieces, nothing specific, other)?

113

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Who decides when steel is delivered to the site?

What triggers steel deliveries (amount of steel available on site, availability of trucks,
availability of fabricated steel members, no special situation, other)?

How many times have you worked in a project in which structural steel was erected
directly from the delivery truck (without unloading and shakeout)? Why?

Do you think that given the adequate conditions it would be possible to erect directly
from the truck?

DO you think it is economically feasible to erect structural steel directly from the
delivery truck? Why?

What do you think would be the problems of erecting steel directly from the delivery
truck?

What changes in your current fabrication and erection practices will need to be made
to erect directly from the truck and solve these problems?

How should structural steel members be loaded on trailers in order to erect directly
from the delivery truck?

If structural steel had to be erected directly from the delivery truck, which one would
be the best pattern to load structural steel on trailers (remember that the height and

width of the sections may vary)?

D IIIII 13' IIIII
HHHHH

D Other (Draw)

Cl
IIH
IIH
IIH
IIH
IIH

114

26. If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck, what would be the
most efficient way of storing structural steel in the storage yard (by level, sequence,
truckload, truckload and according how pieces will be erected, other)?

27. If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck, would you change

the order in which pieces of steel will be erected to improve transportation?

115

Table 13: Investigation interviews responses B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UESTION
QNUMBER RESPONSES
l . . . .

15 years as a shipping and delivery foreman and 33 years loading trucks
1 crane operator

2 2 ironworkers on the truck
1 ironworker hooking steel
1 shipping and delivery foreman (25% of time loading and delivering trucks)

3 It is a permanent crew

4 27'/2 ton mobile crane

5 4-5 hours per day
A. Fabrication of structural steel does not have a steady pace. Sometimes the
number of steel pieces is too much to handle. In some other cases, fabrication of
steel pieces is slow.
B. Steel pieces are stored in a lay down area by sequence. The problem is that I
have no information about the size of each sequence making it difficult to allocate

6 a space for each sequence in the lay down area.
C. Sometimes the sequences are either too big or too small. Both situations create
problems when handling pieces of steel. If the sequence is big, sometimes the
pieces that are required ion site are at the bottom of the pile. If the sequence is too
small, some of the trailers are not loaded to their full capacity.
D. Pieces of fabricated steel sometimes belong to many sequences of the building.
As a result, the handling of these pieces is very inefficient.
A. Produce structural steel with a continuous pace

7 B. Provide information about each sequence
C. Plan each sequence more uniformly
D. F abricate according to erection sequence

8 Uniform layer of steel is placed over the trailer bed. Then irregular pieces are
organized on top of this layer

9 Each piece is interlaced with each other as close as possible

10 Maximum weight is 56,000 pounds
Maximum height of the truckload of steel from the ground up is 13’ 6”

11 Between 38,000 and 45,000 pounds per truckload
Company owned trailer and trucks:
2 Tractor trucks

12 3 Trailers with 50,000 of capacity
2 Trailers with 40,000 of capacity
Standard bed size of each trailer is 8’X40’
2 of the trailer beds can extend up to 65’

13 2 trucks and 5 trailers

14 2 trucks and 5 trailers

15 2-3 hours

16 According to erection sequence

17 Erection foreman requires steel to be delivered

18 Amount of steel available on site

 

 

116

 

Table 13: Investigation interviews responses B (Continuation)

 

QUESTION

 

 

 

NUMBER RESPONSES
19 0
20 Yes
No

A. This will require the use of more trailers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 B. Sometimes steel is not fabricated in sequence
C. There will be more deliveries of steel

22 A. The fabrication of steel according to erection order
B. The number of deliveries will increase

23 A. F abricate structural steel following the order in which it will be erected on site.
B. Drop the loaded trailers on the site and briggback to the shop the empty trailers.

24 Transport first columns then header beams and at last secondary beams of each
sequence.

“ HHHHH

2 6 Store by sequence. Within each sequence columns, main beams and secondary
beams should be saved separately.

27 N0

 

117

 

10.

INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS QUESTIONS

ERECTION FOREMAN

. How many years of experience do you have in your current position?

Describe the typical crew used to erect the structural steel members.
What is the most common crane used on site?

On average, what percentage of structural steel deliveries arrive on site
Early in the morning, before erection begins
During the morning, while erection is going on
During lunch break (no erection)

During the aftemoon, while erection is going on
Other (explain) _
What are the most common types of disruptions to the erection process?

On average, how much time does it take to unload and shakeout a truck of structural
steel (waiting time plus unloading time)?

Who and when is it decided where the unloading and shakeout will occur?

What are the most common inefficiencies or problems in the fabrication and/or
erection process?

How would you solve these inefficiencies or problems?

Some of the factors that affect the position where unloading and shakeout are done
are: availability of space, maneuverability of the crane, easier unloading of the trucks,

and faster erection of steel members. How would you rank them according to order of

importance?

118

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

Approximately what percentage of the projects can unloading and shakeout be done
next to where the structural steel frame will be erected? Why?

Who decides the erection order of the structural steel pieces?

Are pieces of structural steel labeled according to the exact order in which they are
going to be erected (e.g. 1, 2, 3...)?

If you plan the erection order of the structural steel, approximately how long does it
take for each sequence?

On average how many pieces of steel (beams and columns) do you erect daily on
normal conditions?

How many times have you worked in a project in which structural steel was erected
directly from the delivery truck (without unloading and shakeout)? Why?

Do you think that given the adequate conditions it would be possible to erect directly
from the truck?

Do you think it is economically feasible to erect structural steel directly from the
delivery truck? Why?

What do you think would be the problems of erecting steel directly from the delivery
truck?

What changes in your current fabrication and erection practices will need to be made
to erect directly from the truck and solve these problems?

How should structural steel members be loaded on trailers in order to erect directly

from the delivery truck?

119

22. If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck and attach chokers
on site, what would be the minimum space you would leave between pieces of steel
on the truck?

23. If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck, would you change
the order in which pieces of steel will be erected to improve transportation?

24. Can beams be erected directly from the following position (attach chokers and hoist)?

HHHH

25. If structural steel had to be erected directly from the delivery truck, which one would
be the best pattern to load structural steel on trailers (remember that the height and

width of the sections may vary)?

‘3 IIIII D IIIII
HHHHH

1:1 Other (Draw)

[:1
IIH
IIH
IIH
IIH
IIH

120

Table 14: Investigation interviews responses C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UESTION
QNUMBER RESPONSES
1 25 years
1 crane operator
1 oiler
2 2 ironworkers connecting steel
2 ironworkers on the ground
1 erection crew foreman
3 100 ton crawler crane
4 Varies too much. It depends when we run out of steel.
5 A. Weather
B. Jobsite is not ready to erect structural steel
6 1 hour
7 Lay down areas are decided in pro-planning meetings and the erection foreman
decides specific unloading and shakeout areas on site.
8 A. Incomplete design
9 A. Do not start fabrication and erection unless the design is completed
1. Available space on site
10 2. Maneuverability of the crane
3. Easier unloading of the trucks and faster erection
1 1 75 percent
12 Field General Superintendent defines the sequences of each project and the
erection foreman plan the erection order of each steel piece.
13 Yes
14 20 to 30 minutes per sequence
15 50 pieces
16 0 times
17 Yes, with panelized buildings
No
18 A. Mistakes during fabrication or shipping can be costly
B. Planning time will increase the costs
A. Fabrication and/or erection mistakes can seriously affect the process
19 B. Placement of chokers will be difficult
C. Loading irregular shapes could be difficult
A. Design panelized buildings for fabricator to be productive fabricating in the
20 order in which the frame will be erected
B. Have enough space on storage area to store steel
21 Load pieces flat and in reverse order
22 4 inches
23 It will be very difficult and would require ironworkers with specific
characteristics
24 Yes

 

 

121

 

Table 14: Investigation Interviews Responses C (Continuation)

 

 

 

QUESTION RESPONSES
25 H H H H H
H H H H H

 

 

122

 

APPENDIX B

123

INSTRUCTION SHEET READ BY INTERVIEWEES PRIOR TO FEEDBACK

AND PROOF OF CONCEPT INTERVIEWS

 

 

Application of Lean Principles to the
Structural Steel Erection Process
Feedback and Proof of Concept Interviews

Our research group is investigating ways of improving the structural steel erection
process through a research entitled “Application of Lean Principles to the
Structural Steel Erection Process”. The research is being conducted under the
direction of Professor Tim Mrozowski in the Construction Management Program
at Michigan State University. As part of a fabrication and erection company your
knowledge, views and opinions are important to us. Your responses will help
explore if an alternative steel erection process is viable in a case study project.

Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all, may
refuse to answer certain questions, or may discontinue answering the questions at
any time without penalty. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
attending the interviews and responding to the questions. Your name will not be
used in any reporting of the research. Your answers may be reported in
paraphrased form and aggregated with others. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law. The interview should take about 30
minutes.

We thank you in advance for your time in participating in this interview.

 

 

If you have any questions regarding If you have any questions or

this survey or wish to make concerns regarding your rights as a

suggestions please contact: subject of this research please
contact:

Professor Tim Mrozowski

Construction Management Program Dr. Peter Vasilenko

212 Farrall Hall Chair of UCRIHS

E. Lansing, MI 48824 202 Olds Hall

Phone: (517) 353-0781 E. Lansing, MI 48824

E-mail: mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu Phone: (517) 355-2180

E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

8.

9.

FEEDBACK AND PROOF OF CONCEPT INTERVIEWS
(PROJECT MANAGER / SHIPPING AND DELIVERY FOREMAN

ERECTION FOREMAN)

. Can steel pieces be loaded onto trailers using these loading patterns?

Can steel pieces be erected directly from trailers if the steel pieces were arranged

using these patterns?

. Could the alternative process have been implemented in the case study project?

In what percentage of the projects can this alternative process be implemented?

Is it safe to transport and erect structural steel members using this loading
arrangement?

How difficult would it be to load/erect steel using this loading pattern in relation to
how the trailers are usually loaded/erected?

Would it take more or less time to load/erect steel using this loading pattern? Explain.
Do you anticipate any problems of using this alternative procedure?

How could you prevent them from occurring?

10. What are the weaknesses of the alternative process?

11. What are the strengths of the alternative process?

125

Table 15: Feedback interviews results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N O. RESPONDENT l RESPONDENT 2 RESPONDENT 3

1 Yes Yes Yes

2 Yes Yes Yes

3 Yes Yes Yes

4 15% — 20% 20% 10% but growing

5 Yes Yes Yes

6 Slightly more difficult Take more time to load Easier to load and
to load and easier to easier to erect
erect

7 More to load and less More time to load Faster to load and
to erect slower to erect

8 - Safety concerns about - Less number of - With steel with
stability of the loads projects similar to the irregular shapes it
- All the pieces to be case study would be difficult to
loaded have to be - Savings on the implement
already fabricated erection side should be - Safety concerns about

more than costs on the the ironworkers
shop hooking steel

9 - Implement safety - Standardize designs - Simplify designs
measures - Organize the shop - Low bed trailers
- More time between efficiently - Construction aids to
fabrication and handle iron safely
erection

10 See 8 See 8 See 8

11 It saves unloading and Improves the erection Reduction in material

 

shakeout time on site

 

process

 

handling costs and time

 

126

 

Table 16: Proof of concept interviews results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPANY
NO. A B
1 Yes Yes
2 Yes Yes
3 Yes Yes
4 2% 10%
5 Yes Yes
6 More difficult to load / easier to erect 23:5: difficult to load / easrer to
7 More time to load / less time to erect 2:12;: trme to load / less trme to
- Conditions on site may vary - Mistakes may stop the erection
sometimes and the planned erection process
process may have to change
8 - If a truck is late productivity may
stop
- Enough space should be available
on site for shakeout of steel
- Improve coordination on site - Quality control checks and
9 - Provide the adequate requirements accountability of the shipping
of space department
10 See 8 See 8
In certain jobs this process makes Improves the on site efficiency of
sense. Sometimes it is necessary to the process. Speed in the field is
11 erect directly from the delivery where the real cost of the project is.

 

trucks. The rhythm of the erection
crew is critical to improve
productivity.

 

 

127

 

APPENDIX C

128

INDUSTRY SURVEY INSTRUCTION SHEET

 

Application of Lean Principles to the
Structural Steel Erection Process
Fabrication and Erection Companies Survey

Our research group is investigating ways of improving the structural steel erection
process through a research titled “Application of Lean Principles to the Structural
Steel Erection Process”. The research is being conducted under the direction of
Professor Tim Mrozowski in the Construction Management Program at Michigan
State University. As part of the research we are surveying structural steel
fabrication and erection companies to explore how certain construction principles
could be applied successfully.

Please do not write your name on this questionnaire. Questionnaire data will not
be matched with your personal or company information. Individual names will
not be used in any report of research findings. Your participation is voluntary and
you may choose not to participate at all, may refuse to answer certain questions,
or may discontinue answering the questionnaire at any time without penalty. You
indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
questionnaire. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law.

This survey is divided in three parts. If your company fabricates structural steel
answer parts I and 11, if your company erects structural steel answer parts I
and III, and if your company fabricates and erects structural steel answer
parts I, II, and III. The survey is a combination of multiple choice and short
answer questions. Place an “X” in the box beside the best answer or briefly
answer each question in the space provided. Questions should be answered based
on the fabrication and erection process of a common structural steel frame of a
four-story office building. Return the survey using the enclosed stamped
envelope. We thank you in advance for your time in completing this survey. The
survey should take about 20 minutes.

 

 

 

 

If you have any questions regarding If you have any questions or concerns
this survey or wish to make regarding your rights as a subject of
suggestions please contact: this research please contact:

Professor Tim Mrozowski Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Construction Management Program Chair of UCRIHS

212 Farrall Hall 202 Olds Hall

E. Lansing, MI 48824 E. Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 353-0781 Phone: (517) 355-2180

E-mail: mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

 

 

 

129

 

 

FABRICATION AND ERECTION COMPANIES SURVEY

PART I: QUESTIONS FOR FABRICATORS AN D/OR ERECTORS
GENERAL QUESTIONS

Which specialty best describes your company?
Fabricator of structural steel
1] Erector of structural steel
El Fabrication and erection within the same company

D Fabrication and sub-contract erection to a separate erection company

How many years has your company been a structural steel fabricator and/or erector?
D l — 10 Years

[:1 10 — 20 Years

13 20 — 30 Years

El Over 30 Years

Approximately how many projects does your company fabricates and/or erect per year?
1 — 5 Projects

D 5 — 10 Projects

D 10 — 15 Projects

El Over 15 Projects

Which one is the most common type of structural steel frame your company fabricates and/or erects?
Bridges

Buildings

Parking Structures

Industrial Facilities

Other

DUEL—1E]

 

Which best describes the most common number of stories of the structural steel frame of the buildings
your company fabricates and/or erects?

1 — 2 Stories
D 3 — 6 Stories

1:1 Over 6 Stories
ERECTION

Which one of the following is more common in structural steel fabrication and erection projects?
1] All structural steel is fabricated before erection starts
El Most but not all structural steel is fabricated before erection starts

130

7.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

What are the most common inefficiencies or problems in the fabrication and/or erection process?

 

 

 

 

 

ow would you solve these inefficiencies or problems?

 

 

 

 

QP-PP'PZL‘PP-PS"?

 

Have you ever worked in a project were structural steel was erected directly from the delivery truck
(without unloading and shakeout)?

D Yes
D No

If the answer to 9 is YES, approximately what percentage of your projects are steel members erected
directly from the delivery truck (without unloading and shakeout)?
Percent of Projects

If the answer to 9 is NO, do you think it could be possible (given the adequate conditions) to erect
directly from the delivery truck?

El Yes
D No

Do you think it is economically feasible to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck?

El Yes
D No

What are the reasons for your answer in 12?

f.

 

 

 

 

g.
h.
i.
J

 

What are the major problems of erecting steel directly from the truck?

 

 

 

 

9999‘s»

 

131

15. What changes would have to be made to current fabrication and erection processes in order to erect
directly from the delivery truck and solve the problems stated in answer l4?

l6.

17.

18.

19.

 

 

 

 

rte-99‘s»

 

How should structural steel members be loaded on trailers in order to erect directly from the delivery

truck?

 

 

 

 

 

If structural steel had to be erected directly from the delivery truck, which one would be the best
pattern to load structural steel on trailers (remember that the height and width of the sections may

vary)?

D

IIIII ‘3 IIIII
IIIII HHHHH

H H H H H D Other (Draw)
H H H H H

PART II: QUESTIONS FOR FABRICATORS

FABRICATION PROCESS

In what order do you normally fabricate structural steel?

D
D
D
D
D

By sequence

By level or area of the structure

Depending on how pieces will be erected on site
Depending if the pieces are heavy or light weight
Other

 

Approximately what percentage of the structural steel members have to be fabricated before erection
can start?

DDDDDD

Lessthan50%
50-60%
60—70%
70—80%
80—90%
90—100%

132

STORAGE

20. If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck, what would be the most efficient

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

way of storing structural steel in the storage yard?

By level or area of the structure

By sequence

By truck load

By truck load and according to how each piece will be erected on site
Other

DEEMED

 

What is the approximate area available on the yard for storage of fabricated steel prior to its delivery?

Sf

 

TRANSPORTATION

What type of crane (specification) is used to load structural steel on trailers for delivery?

 

Describe the crew used to load steel members on trucks?

 

 

 

 

What is the regular job of each member of this crew (when not loading trucks)?

 

 

 

 

What is the average time used to load a truck with structural steel?
Minutes

What is the average weight of one truckload of structural steel?
Tons

Which figure is a closer illustration of the way a typical layer of structural steel is normally loaded on
trailers?

D IIIII D IIIII
[j IIII I [:1 Other (Draw)

Who has the duty of coordinating structural steel deliveries?
Project Manager

Erection Crew Foreman

Shipping and Delivery Foreman

Other

DUDE!

 

133

PART III: QUESTIONS FOR ERECTORS

UNLOADING AND SHAKEOUT

29. On average, how much time does it take for a truckload of structural steel to be unloaded (waiting time
plus unloading time)?
Minutes

30. When is it decided where unloading and shakeout of steel pieces will occur?
El Before the erection process starts
B When steel arrives on site

El Other

 

31. Who decides where unloading and shakeout will occur?

Erection foreman

Fabricator’s Project manager

General Contractor’s Project Manager or Superintendent
Other

DUDE]

 

ERECTION

32. Approximately how many pieces of steel do you erect daily on normal conditions?
1:] 1 — 10 pieces
D 10 — 20 pieces
El 20 — 30 pieces
[:1 30 — 40 pieces
1:] Over 40 pieces

33. Describe the typical crew used to erect steel members.

 

 

 

34. What wages are usually paid to the members of the erection crew?
1:] Prevailing wages
[:1 Union wages

1:] Non-union or Prevailing wages

35. What is the most common crane (type, capacity, boom, etc.) used to erect structural steel on site?

 

134

36. Who decides the order in which each piece of structural steel will be erected?

 

37. When is the order in which each piece of structural steel will be erected decided?

 

38. Are pieces of structural steel labeled according to the exact order in which they are going to be erected
(e.g.1, 2, 3...)?

Yes

D No

39. If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck, would you change the order in
which pieces of steel will be erected to improve transportation?

D Yes
D No

40. Can beams be erected directly from the following position (attach chokers and hoist)?
[:1 Yes

1:] No

41. If you had to erect structural steel directly from the delivery truck and attach chokers on site, what
would be the minimum space you would leave between pieces of steel on the truck?

Less than 1 inch
1 - 2 inches
2 — 3 inches

More than 3 inches

DUDE]

135

Table 17: Fabrication and erection companies responses

 

QUESTION 1

 

COMPANY

Fabrication and erection within the same company

 

Fabrication and erection within the same company

 

Erector of structural steel

 

Erector of structural steel

 

Erector of structural steel

 

Erector of structural steel

 

Erector of structural steel

 

Erector of structural steel

 

Erector of structural steel

 

 

a—mo-nwcnea.»

 

Erector of structural steel

 

QUESTION 2

 

COMPANY

O - 10 years

 

Over 30 years

 

20 — 30 years

 

2O — 30 years

 

O — 10 years

 

Over 30 years

 

Over 30 years

 

10 — 20 years

 

Over 30 years

 

 

a—mnmwcnw>

 

Over 30 years

 

QUESTION 3

 

 

COMPANY

Over 15 projects

 

5 -— 10 projects

 

Over 15 projects

 

Over 15 projects

 

Over 15 projects

 

Over 15 projects

 

Over 15 projects

 

Over 15 projects

 

Over 15 projects

 

 

H—ICHHUOW>

 

Over 15 projects

 

136

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 4

 

COMPANY

Buildings and industrial facilities

 

Buildings

 

Buildings

 

Bridges

 

Buildings

 

Bridges

 

Buildings and bridges

 

Buildings

 

Buildings

 

a—mnmmenw>

 

 

Bridges, Buildings and Industrial Facilities

 

QUESTION 5

 

COMPANY

3 - 6 stories

 

3 - 6 stories

 

1 — 2 stories

 

Not applicable

 

1 — 2 stories

 

Over 6 stories

 

Different stories

 

l — 6 stories

 

3 — 6 stories

 

E—ID'I'IFJUOW>

 

 

1 to over 6 stories

 

QUESTION 6

 

 

COMPANY

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

All structural steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

 

HHEOMMUO§>

 

Most but not all steel is fabricated before erection starts

 

137

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 7

 

 

COMPANY

a. Changes by the architect/engineer

b. Late release of shop drawings

c. Inaccurate or incomplete design drawings
d. Detailing mistakes

e. Coordination of trades at the jobsite

 

a. Design changes

b. Lack of information

c. Insufficient lay down area

(1. Enforcement of more stringent safety

 

a. Steel does not fit due to detailing errors

 

a. Hole alignment

 

a. Missing pieces

b. Out of sequence deliveries

c. Detailing/fabrication errors

(1. Roof frame locations/dimensions not available at start of
erection ~

 

Not answered

 

a. Steel not properly detailed in the shop drawings

 

Not answered

 

a. Fabrication errors

b. Detailing errors

0. Shipments out of sequence

(1. Bad work site

e. Concrete and anchor rods placement errors

 

 

 

a. Out of sequence deliveries
b. Crane access

c. Anchor bolts errors

(1. Site conditions

e. Changes

 

138

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 8

 

COMPANY

a. Standardize design drawings

b. Complete designs to minimize changes
c. Checking of detail drawings

(1. Subcontractor input on scheduling

 

a. Finish design prior to bidding

b. More complete design drawings

c. Improve site conditions

(1. Follow OSHA not CMA safety plan

 

a. Better attention to detail drawings

 

U

Not answered

 

1!!

a. Quality control
b. Roof frame information should b made available in
detailing phase

 

Not answered

 

Correct detailing

 

Not answered

 

~=Ouu

a. More control

 

a. Communicate importance of sequenced material

b. Create site specific plan showing crane access

0. Inspect site request as built survey

(1. Inspect site and go over crane, truck and lift access

e. Make sure all parties agree to direction before starting

 

QUESTION 9

 

 

COMPANY

Yes

 

No

 

No

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

No

 

Yes

 

No

 

No

 

H—EO’TJMUOW>

 

 

Yes

 

139

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 10

 

COMPANY

10 percent of the projects

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

25 percent of the projects

 

2 percent of the projects

 

Not applicable

 

1 percent

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

 

HHEOGHUGw>

1 percent

 

QUESTION 11

 

COMPANY

Not applicable (yes)

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Not applicable (yes)

 

Not applicable (yes)

 

Yes

 

Not applicable (yes)

 

No

 

Yes

 

“HEOMHUGW>

 

 

Yes

 

QUESTION 12

 

COMPANY

No

 

No

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

 

a—mo-umcnws-

 

No

 

 

140

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 13

 

 

COMPANY

a. Erecting directly from the truck is oflen not safe or
economically feasible

b. Loading members to a truck in reverse order of erection
does not coordinate well with the fabrication process

 

a. There will be more sorting at the fabricating plant

b. Trucks might not get close enough to exact point of
erection

c. Cost of driver to wait for the entire truck to be erected

 

a. Paying per diem charges on flat bed not expensive versus
labor

 

a. When you erecting on an express way with lane closures
there is no room to unload. You must erect directly from the
truck

b. Time is saved if there is no unloading, specially when
only a few beams are on the truck

 

a. Unsafe for large loads
b. More time spent loading materials in the exact sequence
0. Truck drivers would be delayed

 

a. Cost for truckers waiting for steel to be erected

b. Cost of erection crew waiting for delivery truck to arrive
d. Some trucks would have to be shipped with less than firll
loads, having to use more trucks to deliver steel

 

a. Usually heavier pieces are loaded on the bottom of the
truckload and they are erected first

 

a. The fabricator would need many trucks and have them
lined up on street

 

a. Access for hooking up the pieces of steel
b. Site access to move trucks around

c. Dropping trailers

d. Safety

 

 

 

a. Fabricators cannot load 20 — 30 pieces of iron because
they are all of different heights and lengths

 

141

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 14

 

 

COMPANY

a. Any coordination mistake in loading could cause the
entire truckload to be un-erectable
b. It is unsafe to try to erect from the truck

 

a. See 13

b. Safety of working on the ground when compared to on
the truck

c. The truckload might be unstable when erecting

 

Not answered

 

a. Fabricator loads beams to close together
b. Load not balanced properly on a truck

 

a. Finding piece marks
b. Keeping pieces in sequence
c. Safety concerns about load shifis

 

a. Trucks have to remain idle when erection is lost due to
weather conditions
b. Sometimes erection order has to be varied to daily site

conditions
c. See 13

 

Not answered

 

a. Pinch hazards for book on men
b. Fall hazards for men working on truck

 

See 13

 

 

 

a. Takes away all options and if pieces of steel are not
fabricated appropriately or missing you have to stop
completely

 

142

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 15

 

COMPANY

a. Erecting from the truck is unsafe and should be done only
under special circumstances

 

a. Load less steel on each truck
b. Use of more equipment such as man baskets
0. Different loading techniques

 

a. Erector determines truck loading
b. Less steel per truck

 

a. Erector should give proper loading sequence to the
fabricator
b. Fabricator should ask for loading requirements

 

Not answered

 

a. Fabricator would have to be located close to the site for
delivery of steel. This could be achieved using a marshalling
yard

 

Not answered

 

Not answered

 

a. Coordination of loading
b. Having tractors available

 

 

“It—:0

 

Not answered

 

QUESTION 16

 

 

COMPANY

a. Space with dunnage between each layer
b. Members need to be oriented in their erected position on
the truck

 

a. First piece erected must be last piece loaded
b. Leave space between pieces of steel

 

a. In order of erection
b. Steel needs to be spaced so chokers can be used

 

U

a. If four beams are on a truck, 1"t and 2"d pieces need to be
placed on the outside of the trailer and the 3rd and 4th piece
in the middle

 

Not answered

 

a. Exact I'CVCI'SC CI‘CCIIOD OI'dCI'

 

Not answered

 

Not answered

 

H IOHH

a. In sequence according to how it will be erected
b. With space between pieces

 

Gun

 

 

a. Pieces needed first have to be on top
b. Leave space between pieces for rigging

 

143

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 11111
11111
B Not answered
C IIIII
IIIII
D IIIII
IIIII
E E 11111
g IIIII
2
8 F 11111
11111
G Not answered
H 11111
11111
, IIIII
IIIII
J Not answered
QUESTION 18
A By sequence
B As returned from approval with some selection of like
pieces if time permits
C Not applicable
E D Not applicable
9: E Not applicable
5 F Not applicable
U G Not applicable
H Not applicable
I Not applicable
J Not applicable

 

144

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 19

 

COMPANY

Less than 50 percent

 

50 — 60 percent

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

 

~ommcnw>

 

Not applicable

 

QUESTION 20

 

COMPANY

By sequence and by truck load

 

By truckload and according to how each piece will be

erected

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

 

HHIQH'JHUO w >

 

Not applicable

 

QUESTION 21

 

 

COMPANY

20,000 square feet

 

40,000 square feet

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

HHIQQHUO¢>

 

 

Not applicable

 

145

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 22

 

COMPANY

Electric overhead traveling crane (10 ton capacity)

 

40 ton hydraulic crane and fork lift

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

 

a—mnmmcnwr»

 

Not applicable

 

QUESTION 23

 

COMPANY

2 man crew, shop employees

 

5 man crew: l crane operator, 2 crewmembers on the
ground and 2 crewmembers on the truck

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

H—EO'TJHUO w >

 

 

Not applicable

 

QUESTION 24

 

 

COMPANY

Material handling, unloading and sometimes painting

 

Storage, loading, driver or as needed for fabrication

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

HmflfififiUOW>

 

 

Not applicable

 

146

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 25

 

COMPANY

60 minutes

 

90 minutes

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

3"“ l: Cl'fi EH €115 Ufli>

 

 

Not applicable

 

QUESTION 26

 

COMPANY

16tons

 

20 tons

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

 

h~=nmwcnw>

 

Not applicable

 

_ QUESLION 27

 

 

 

 

>

‘—

Ill—El:

 

El

IIIII HHHHH

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

 

HHEO'fiHUO

 

Not applicable

 

147

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 28

 

COMPANY

Project manager

 

Erection crew foreman and shipping and delivery foreman

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 

HHIQMHGO¢>

 

 

Not applicable

 

QUESTION 29

 

COMPANY

60 minutes

 

60 minutes

 

30 minutes

 

3O — 120 minutes

 

60 minutes

 

30 minutes

 

60 - 120 minutes

 

Depends on crane size

 

Not answered

 

a—mnwmunwrv

 

 

45 minutes

 

QUESTION 30

 

 

COMPANY

During the bid and planning phase

 

Before the erection process starts

 

When steel arrives on site

 

Before erection process starts

 

Before erection process starts

 

Before erection process starts

 

Before erection process starts and when steel arrives on site

 

Before erection process starts

 

Not answered

 

 

a—mnmwcnw>

 

Before erection process starts

 

148

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 31

 

COMPANY

Coordinated between the GC and the erector

 

Erection superintendent and GC during pre-award and base
on how the prgject was bid

 

Erection foreman

 

Erection foreman and project manager

 

Erection foreman

 

Combination of the above

 

Erection foreman and GC’s project manager or
superintendent

 

Erection superintendent and GC’s superintendent

 

Not answered

 

Gut—I: C) 'I'JHUO a >

 

Erection foreman and erector’s project manager

 

QUESTION 32

 

COMPANY

Over 40 pieces

 

Over 40 pieces

 

30 — 40 pieces

 

Not answered

 

Over 40 pieces

 

3O — 40 pieces

 

Over 40 pieces

 

Over 40 pieces

 

Over 40 pieces

 

h~fl0mmunw>

 

 

3O —- 40 pieces and over 40 pieces

 

QUESTION 33

 

 

COMPANY

5 man crew: 1 Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

5 man crew: 1 Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

5 man crew: l Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

5 man crew: l Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

5 man crew: l Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 hook on

 

5 man crew: 1 Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

5 man crew: 1 Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 hook on

 

5 man crew: l Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

5 man crew: 1 Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

HHEOQMUO¢>

 

 

5 man crew: 1 Foreman, 2 connectors, 2 book on

 

149

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 34

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

Union wages

 

“HIOMMUGW>

Union wages

 

QUESTION 35

 

COMPANY

100 ton / 160’ lattice boom crane

 

80 ton hydraulic crane or 100 ton crawler crane

 

20 to 30 ton hydraulic crane

 

Hydraulic truck crane

 

40 ton hydraulic crane

 

Varies

 

Crawlers and hydraulic

 

Erection superintendent

 

50 ton hydraulic crane with 100 feet boom

 

 

HH:O’#HUO§>

 

Mobile crane

 

QUESTION 36

 

 

COMPANY

Coordinated with GC / Erector

 

Erection superintendent and GC/CM during pre-award

 

Erection foreman

 

Erector

 

Erection foreman

 

Erection foreman

 

Erection foreman

 

Erection superintendent

 

Foreman

 

 

HHIOEMUGQ>

 

Erection foreman

 

150

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 37

 

Bid / planning phase

 

Prior to start of shop drawings

 

On site, daily

 

One month prior to erection

 

On site as erection progresses

 

Exact order of individual pieces just before erection

 

COMPANY

On site

 

In detailing

 

As the work goes on

 

 

 

H~=01H60w>

Onsite afier complete delivery is confirmed

 

QUESTION 38

 

No

 

Yes

 

No

 

Yes

 

No

 

Yes

 

COMPANY

No

 

No

 

No

 

HHEQMHUOW>

No

 

 

 

QUESTION 39

 

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

Yes if possible

 

No

 

Yes

 

COMPANY

No

 

No

 

Yes

 

H~=nmwcnw>

No

 

 

 

151

 

Table 16: Fabrication and Erection Companies Responses (Continuation)

 

QUESTION 40

 

COMPANY

No

 

Yes

 

No

 

NO

 

Yes but the choker might require repositioning

 

Yes

 

No

 

No

 

Yes

 

 

HHIQQHUOW>

 

Yes

 

QUESTION 41

 

 

COMPANY

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

More than 3 inches

 

H-louseicnw>

 

 

2 — 3 inches

 

152

 

APPENDIX D

153

Table 18: Organized steel with 12 inches as nominal height (Truck A)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE DESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
1101 1 1 1 w 12X50 33-11-3/4 1843 1843
901 2,3 1 2 w 12X50 3311-04 1864 3728
1102 4 1 1 w 12X50 3311-374 1843 1843
602 5,6 1 2 w 12X53 33-11-1/4 1966 3931
601 7 1 1 w 12X53 3311-174 1966 1966
301 8 1 1 w 12X65 45-7-1/4 3161 3161
302 9,10,11,12 1 4 w 12X58 45-7-1/4 2842 11368
401 13 1 1 w 12X58 45-7-1/4 2842 2842
701 14 1 1 w 12X53 3341-04 1968 1968
702 15 1 1 w 12X53 33-11-1/4 1968 1968
801 16 1 1 w 12X53 3311-174 1966 1966
NUMBER OF PIECES 16 WEIGHT (LBS) 36584
Table 19: Organized steel with 12 inches as nominal height (Truck B)

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPElDESCRIPTIONlLENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
1201 1 2 1 w 12X50 33-11-1/4 1843 1843
1002 2 2 1 w 12X50 33-11-1/4 1864 1864
1001 3 2 1 w 12xs0 33-11-1/4 1864 1864
1202 4 2 1 w 12xso 33-11-1/4 1843 1843
602 5,6,7 2 3 w 12xs3 33-11-1/4 1966 5897
501 8 2 1 w 12X65 457-174 3161 3161
402 9 2 1 w 12X65 45-7-1/4 3161 3161
502 10 2 1 w 12X58 45-7-1/4 2842 2842
302 11 2 1 w 12X58 45-7-1/4 2842 2842
402 12 2 1 w 12X65 457-174 3161 3161
402 13 2 1 w 12X65 45-7-1/4 3161 3161
801 14,15,16 2 3 w 12xs3 33-11-1/4 1966 5897

NUMBER OF PIECES 16 WEIGHT (LBS) 37536

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

Table 20: Organized steel with 12 inches as nominal height (Truck C)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPElDESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-
1103 1 5 1 W 12X50 22-7-1/2 1131 1131
9C2 2,3 5 2 W 12X50 22-7-1/2 1 132 2263
1104 4 5 1 W 12X50 22-7-1/2 1131 1131
604 5,6 5 2 W 12X53 22-7-1 I2 1 199 2398
6C3 7 5 1 W 12x53 22-7-1/2 1 199 1 199
1801 8 5 1 W 12x40 31 -7-1 /2 1275 1275
1601 9 5 1 W 12X40 31 -7-1 /2 1275 1275
1401 10 5 1 W 12X40 31-7-1/2 1274 1274
1501 1 1 5 1 W 12x40 31 -7-1/2 1274 1274
1701 12 5 1 W 12X40 31 -7-1 I2 1275 1275
1901 13 5 1 W 12x40 31 -7-1/2 1275 1275
7C3 14 5 1 W 12x53 22-7-1/2 1 199 1 199
704 15 5 1 W 12x53 22-7-1/2 1 199 1 199
802 16 5 1 W 12xs3 22-7-1/2 1 199 1 199
604 1 ,2,3 6 3 W 12x53 22-7-1/2 1 199 3597
1204 4 6 1 W 12X50 22-7-1/2 1131 1131
1003 5 6 1 W 12X50 22-7-1/2 1131 1131
1301 6 6 1 W 12X40 21-11-1/2 878 878
2001 7 6 1 W 12x40 31 -7-1/2 1274 1274
1602 8 6 1 W 12X40 31 -7-1/2 1275 1275
1701 9 6 1 W 12x40 31 -7-1/2 1275 1275
2101 10 6 1 W 12X40 31-7-1/2 1274 1274
1302 11 6 1 W 12X4O 21-11-1/2 878 878
1004 12 6 1 W 12X50 22-7-1/2 1131 1131
1203 13 6 1 W 12X50 22-7-1/2 1131 1131
802 14.15.16 6 3 W 12x53 22-7-1/2 1 199 3597
NUMBER OF PIECES 32 WEIGHT (LBS) 37939

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

 

Ems: 35:5: 8 8205 N. 55 38¢ .8,“ memo—:25 .8 wEBSQ A: PSmE

890:5 l/ @285 $3
@585 Nxm

 

L €699 _.

.3on EBBEW mo 32 some
359% can 05on 8 3255 on
6:8 wing? Sarnoaaax “mHOZ

J

 

 

E

 

SZ’OS —-

BEE

 

 

ml

|||L

83m 095 55:00

LA

  

156

Table 21: Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck D)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE DESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
3881 1 1 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1355 1355
3481 2 1 1 W 21X50 28-10-3/4 1510 1510
3882 3 1 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1355 1 355
3482 15 1 1 W 21 X50 29-3- 1 509 1 509
3883 16 1 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1349 1349
3981 17 1 1 W 21X44 29—3 1351 1351
3482 37 1 1 W 21 X50 29-3- 1 509 1 509
3983 38 1 1 W 21 X44 28-1 0-3/4 1348 1 348
3982 39 1 1 W 21 X44 29-3 1351 1351
4081 1 2 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1351 1351
3582 2 2 1 W 21x50 28-11 1521 1521
3982 3 2 1 W 21 X44 29-3 1351 1351
3383 4 2 1 W 21 X57 29-10-3/4 1782 1782
4582 9 2 1 W 21 X57 29-8-5/8 1 752 1 752
4081 30 2 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1351 1351
3884 31 2 1 W 21 X44 28-1 1- 1336 1336
3982 32 2 1 W 21X44 29-3 1351 1351
4082 44 2 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1355 1 355
4083 45 2 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1344 1344
4084 46 2 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1 355 1 355
3782 58 2 1 W 21 X44 29-8-3/4 1 346 1 346
2681 63 2 1 W 21 X44 31 -3-5/1 6 1380 1380
4185 4 3 1 W 21X44 30-2-3/4 1668 1668
3882 5 3 1 W 21 X44 29-3 1 355 1355
3481 6 3 1 W 21X50 28-10-3/4 1511 1511
3881 7 3 1 W 21 X44 29-3 1355 1355
3784 8 3 1 W 21 X44 30-2-3/4 1668 1 668

NUMBER OF PIECES 27 WEIGHT (LBS) 38768

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

Table 22: Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck E)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE DESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
4181 32 3 1 W 21X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
3981 33 3 1 W 21 X44 29—3 1351 1351
4184 38 3 1 W 21X44 28-10-3/4 1349 1349
3581 51 3 1 W 21 X50 29-3 1 526 1526
3984 52 3 1 W 21 X44 29-1 0-3/4 1 653 1653
4181 56 3 1 W 21X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
3982 57 3 1 W 21 X44 29-3 1 351 1351
3983 62 3 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1349 1349
3581 71 3 1 W 21 X50 29-3 1 526 1526
4882 72 3 1 W 21 X83 29-1 0-5/8 2622 2622
41 85 79 3 1 W 21 X44 30-2-3/4 1 668 1668
3981 80 3 1 W 21 X44 29-3 1351 1351
3481 89 3 1 W 21X50 28-10-3/4 1511 1511
4284 98 3 1 W 21 X44 29-3 1351 1351
3784 99 3 1 W 21 X44 30—2-3/4 1 668 1668
3984 107 3 1 W 21 X44 29-10-3/4 1653 1653
3682 108 3 1 W 21 X50 29-3 1 537 1537
4282 1 09 3 1 W 21 X44 28-1 0-3/4 1 349 1 349
3981 110 3 1 W 21X44 29-3 1351 1351
4181 111 3 1 W 21X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649

4181A 1 4 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599

3982A 2 4 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1341 1341

3383A 3 4 1 W 21 X57 29-1 0-3/4 1 775 1775
3681 7 4 1 W 21X50 28-11- 1521 1521

4582A 9 4 1 W 21 X57 29-8-5/8 1 738 1738

4081A 20 4 1 W 21 X44 29—3- 1341 1341
4182 21 4 1 W 21 X44 29—10-3/4 1649 1649

NUMBER OF PIECES 27 WEIGHT (LBS) 42077

 

158

Table 23: Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck F)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTIONlLENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
41 81 A 25 4 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
3982A 26 4 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1341 1341
3884A 31 4 1 W 21 X44 28—1 1- 1326 1326
41 81 A 36 4 1 W 21 X44 28-1 0-3/4 1 599 1 599
4183 37 4 1 W 21 X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
4181A 41 4 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
4084A 42 4 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1 345 1345
4083A 47 4 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1334 1334
4083A 52 4 1 W 21 X44 28—1 0-3/4 1 334 1 334
4183 53 4 1 W 21 X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
4283 57 4 1 W 21 X44 30-2-3/4 1 672 1 672
4684 69 4 1 W 21X44 30-1-1/2 1351 1351
2584A 72,73 4 2 W 21 X44 19-1-3/4 432 864
4281 75 4 1 W 21 X44 30-2-3/4 1672 1672
41 B 1 A 83 4 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1 599 1599
3982A 84 4 1 W 21 X44 29-3— 1341 1341
3383A 85 4 1 W 21 X57 29—10-3/4 1775 1775
3783 89 4 1 W 21X50 28-11- 1521 1521
4582A 91 4 1 W 21 X57 29-8—5/8 1 738 1738
4081A 103 4 1 W 21X44 29-3- 1341 1341
4182 104 4 1 W 21X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
4181A 108 4 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
3982A 1 09 4 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1 341 1 341
3884A 1 14 4 1 W 21 X44 28-1 1- 1326 1326
4081A 119 4 1 W 21X44 29-3- 1341 1341
41 B3 120 4 1 W 21 X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
NUMBER OF PIECES 27 WEIGHT (LBS) 38554

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

 

Table 24: Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck G)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTIONILENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
4131A 124 4 1 w 21X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
3931A 125 4 1 w 21X44 29-3- 1340 1340
4033A 130 4 1 w 21X44 28-10-3/4 1334 1334
4234A 135 4 1 w 21x44 298- 1340 1340
4133 136 4 1 w 21X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
4233 140 4 1 w 21X44 30-2-3/4 1672 1672
4634 152 4 1 w 21x44 30-1-1/2 1351 1351
2534A 154,155 4 2 w 21X44 19-1-3/4 432 864
4231 157 4 1 w 21X44 30-2-3/4 1672 1672
4135A 4 5 1 w 21X44 30-2-3/4 1662 1662
4332 5 5 1 w 21x44 293- 1351 1351
4332 23 5 1 w 21X44 29-3- 1351 1351
3734A 24 5 1 w 21X44 30-2-3/4 1662 1662
4131A 32 5 1 w 21X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
4332 33 5 1 w 21X44 29-3- 1351 1351
4331 38 5 1 w 21X44 28-11- 1350 1350
3433 48 5 1 w 21X50 29-3- 1537 1537
3934A 49 5 1 w 21X44 29.10-3/4 1643 1643
4131A 53 5 1 w 21X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
4332 54 5 1 w 21X44 29-3- 1351 1351
5631 68 5 1 w 21X50 29-3- 1537 1537
4631 69 5 1 w 21X50 29-8-5/8 1686 1686
6432 87 5 1 w 21 X57 28-1 1- 1743 1743
6331 116 5 1 w 21X68 28-11- 2069 2069
6532 120,121 5 2 w 21X44 29-8-3/16 1313 2625
NUMBER OF PIECES 27 WEIGHT (LBS) 38937

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

160

 

Table 25: Organized steel with 21 inches as nominal height (Truck H)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTIONI LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
6382 141 5 1 W 21 X68 28-1 1- 2071 2071
4382 2 6 1 W 21 X44 29-3— 1351 1351

3383A 3 6 1 W 21 X57 29-10-3/4 1775 1775
5682 7 6 1 W 21X50 28-11- 1521 1521

4582A 9 6 1 W 21 X57 29-8-5/8 1 737 1 737
4382 17 6 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1351 1351
41 82 18 6 1 W 21 X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649

41 81 A 22 6 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
4382 23 6 1 W 21 X44 29-3— 1351 1351
5782 28 6 1 W 21 X44 28—1 1- 1336 1336
4382 33 6 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1351 1351
41 83 34 6 1 W 21 X44 29-10—3/4 1649 1649

4181A 38 6 1 W 21 X44 28-10-3/4 1599 1599
4382 39 6 1 W 21 X44 29-3- 1351 1351
5783 44 6 1 W 21X44 28-11- 1345 1345
4183 50 6 1 W 21 X44 29-10-3/4 1649 1649
4283 54 6 1 W 21 X44 30-2-3/4 1672 1 672
2585 56 6 1 W 21 X44 29-8-3/4 1349 1 349

4684A 66 6 1 W 21 X44 30-1-1/2 1351 1351
4281 72 6 1 W 21 X44 30-2-3/4 1672 1 672
6481 87 6 1 W 21 X68 28-1 1- 2064 2064
6583 91 ,92 6 2 W 21 X44 28-8-3/16 1312 2624
6581 112 6 1 W 21 X50 28-11- 1489 1489
6585 1 16,1 17 6 2 W 21 X44 29-9—1/4 1332 2663

NUMBER OF PIECES 26 WEIGHT (LBS) 39569

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

161

 

9238a 88

 

Ems: 35:8: 8 8:2: 5 5:5 63m 38 .832on we wars—ED ; fl 233m

.303. 3:50:33 mo 32 some
ouzfifim can 288 8 80285 on
$3: wEmEm—o Bargain: ”mHOZ

com 5:9?

 

162

Table 26: Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck 1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTIONILENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
4482 4 1 1 W 1 6X26 28—1 0-3/4 799 799
2281 5,6,7 1 3 W 16X26 31-3-5/16 815 2446
4482 8 1 1 W 1 6X26 28-1 0-3/4 799 799
4581 9 1 1 W 16X26 31-3-5/16 816 816
2282 10,11 1 2 W 16X26 31-3-5/16 815 1630
2281 12.13.14 1 3 W 16X26 31-3-5/16 815 2446
2284 19,20,21 1 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2331
4481 22 1 1 W 1 6X26 28-1 0-3/4 803 803
2383 27 1 1 W 1 6X26 23-2-3/4 632 632
2285 34 ,35,36 1 3 W 16X26 29—8—5/8 777 2331
4484 40 1 1 W 1 6X26 28-1 0-3/4 802 802
2381 41 ,42,43 1 3 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 777 2330
4481 44 1 1 W 1 6X26 28-1 0-3/4 803 803
2382 45 1 1 W 16X26 29—8-5/8 778 778
2384 46 1 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 778 778
2286 51 ,52,53 1 3 W 16X26 29—8-5/8 777 2330
2381 5,6,7 2 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2330
4481 8 2 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 803 803
2385 27.28.29 2 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2330
4485 33 2 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 803 803
2381 34,35,36 2 3 W 16X26 29-8—5/8 777 2330
4481 37 2 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 803 803
2386 38,39,40 2 3 W 1 6X26 29-8—5/8 777 2331
2381 41 ,42,43 2 3 W 16X26 29—8-5/8 777 2330
4484 47 2 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 802 802
4584 48,49 2 2 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 1554

NUMBER OF PIECES 50 WEIGHT (LBS) 39267

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163

Table 27: Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck J)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
4584 50 2 1 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 777
4481 51 2 1 W 1 6X26 29-10-3/4 803 803
4584 52 2 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 777 777
2381 53,54 2 2 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 1553
4584 55.56.57 2 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2331
2283 59.60.61 2 3 W 16X26 31 -3-5/16 815 2446
4483 62 2 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 801 801
2781 64 2 1 W 16X26 22-7-1/2 616 616
2283 67.68.69 2 3 W 16X26 31 -3-5/16 815 2446
2883 9.10.11 3 3 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 805 2415
4486 12 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 799 799
2885 1 3 3 1 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 806 806
2884 14,15 3 2 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 805 1610
4486 16 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 799 799
2883 17.18.19 3 3 W 16X26 30—1-9/16 805 2415
2284 35.36.37 3 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2331
4481 39 3 1 W 1 6X26 29—10-3/4 803 803
2987 44 3 1 W 16X26 23-2-3/4 632 632
2285 53.54.55 3 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2331
4481 58 3 1 W 1 6X26 29—10-3/4 803 803
2381 59.60.61 3 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2331
4481 63 3 1 W 16X26 29-10—3/4 803 803
2382 64 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 778 778
2384 65 3 1 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 778 778
4981 73 3 1 W 16X26 29-8—5/8 792 792
2286 74,75 3 2 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 1554
4486 81 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-8—3/4 799 799
2883 82.83.84 3 3 W 16X26 30—1-9/16 805 2415
4486 90 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 799 799

NUMBER OF PIECES 50 WEIGHT (LBS) 39342

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

164

 

Table 28: Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck K)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTIONILENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
2885 91 3 1 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 806 806
2884 92.93 3 2 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 805 1610
2883 1 00 3 1 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 805 805
2381 1 13.1 14.1 15 3 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2331
4481 1 16 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 803 803
31 83 1 21 3 1 W 16X26 23—2-3/4 632 632
31 82 1 27a 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 777 777
4481 1 33 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 803 803
2381 134,135,136 3 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 777 2331
4481 1 37 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 803 803
2382 1 38 3 1 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 778 778
4982 144 3 1 W 1 6X26 29-8—5/8 786 786
2286 145,146 3 2 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 777 1 554

2381 A 4.5.6 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

4481A 8 4 1 W 16X26 29-10-3/4 798 798

2385A 22.23.24 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

4481 A 27 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-10—3/4 798 798

2381A 28.29.30 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

4481A 32 4 1 W 16X26 29-10-3/4 798 798

238 1 A 38.39.40 4 3 W 16X26 29—8-5/8 773 2319

4484A 43 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798

4584A 44.45.46 4 3 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

4481 A 48 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798

4584A 49 4 1 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 773

2381A 50,51 4 2 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 1 546

4584A 54.55.56 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319
2585 59 4 1 W 16X26 29-8-3/4 1 349 1 349
3181 60,61 .62 4 3 W 16X26 30-1-1/2 805 2415
4487 68 4 1 W 16X26 29-8-3/4 807 807

NUMBER OF PIECES 50 WEIGHT (LBS) 39613

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165

Table 29: Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck L)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTIONI LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
31 B1 76 4 1 W 16X26 30-1-1/2 805 805
3181 79,80 4 2 W 16X26 30-1-1/2 805 1610

2381 A 86.87.88 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

4481 A 90 4 1 W 16X26 29-1 0—3/4 798 798

2385A 105,106,107 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

4481 A 1 10 4 1 W 16X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798

2381A 111,112,113 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

44B 1 A 1 1 5 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798

2381A 121,122,123 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

4484A 1 26 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798

238 1 A 127,128,129 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 1546

4481 A 1 31 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798

4584A 132 4 1 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 773

2381A 133.134 4 2 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 1546

2381 A 137,138,139 4 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319

2385A 142 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-5/8 773 773
3181 143,144,145 4 3 W 16X26 30-1-1/2 805 2415
4487 1 51 4 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 807 807
3181 158,159,160 4 3 W 16X26 30-1-1/2 805 2415

4486A 6 5 1 W 16X26 29-8-3/4 799 799

2883A 7.8.9 5 3 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 799 2397

4486A 1 5 5 1 W 1 6X26 29-8—3/4 799 799

2885A 1 6 5 1 W 1 6X26 30-1 -9/ 1 6 799 799

2884A 17.18 5 2 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 800 1599

2883A 2526.27.28.29 5 5 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 799 3995

NUMBER OF PIECES 50 WEIGHT (LBS) 38663

 

 

 

 

166

 

Table 30: Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck M)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
2883A 30 5 1 W 16X26 30-1-9/16 799 799
2381 A 35.36.37 5 3 W 16X26 29-8—5/8 773 2319
4481 A 39 5 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798
4682 44 5 1 W 16X26 23-2-3/4 632 632
31 82A 50.51 .52 5 3 W 16X26 29-8—5/8 773 2318
4481 A 55 5 1 W 16X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798
238 1 A 56.57.58 5 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319
4481 A 60 5 1 W 16X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798
2382A 61 5 1 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 773
2384A 62 5 1 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 773
2286A 70.71 ,72 5 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2318
7081 82 5 1 W 16X26 30-1-5/8 805 805
6984 1 00 5 1 W 1 6X26 30-1 -5/8 805 805
5387 1 1 5 5 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
5483 130 5 1 W 16X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
5388 137 5 1 W 16X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
4481 A 1 6 1 W 16X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798
2381 A 4.5.6 6 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319
4481 A 8 6 1 W 16X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798
2385A 19.20.21 6 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2318
4481A 24 6 1 W 16X26 29-10-3/4 798 798
2381A 25.26.27 6 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319
NUMBER OF PIECES 36 WEIGHT (LBS) 27936

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

167

Table 31: Organized steel with 16 inches as nominal height (Truck N)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE IDESCRIPTION] LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
4481 A 29 6 1 W 1 6X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798
2386A 30,31 .32 6 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2318
2381 A 35.36.37 6 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319
4484A ' 40 6 1 W 1 6X26 29—1 0-3/4 798 798
2381A 41 ,42,43 6 3 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 2319
4481 A 45 6 1 W 16X26 29-1 0-3/4 798 798
238 1 A 46.47 6 2 W 16X26 29-8-5/8 773 1546
4584A 48 6 1 W 1 6X26 29—8-5/8 773 773
2381 A 51 ,52,53 6 3 W 16X26 29—8-5/8 773 2319
3181 57.58.59 6 3 W 16X26 30-1-1/2 805 2415
4487 65 6 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 807 807
2781A 67 6 1 W 16X26 22-7-1/2 609 609
3181 73.74.75 6 3 W 16X26 30-1-1/2 805 2415
5389 83 6 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
5485 1 01 6 1 W 1 6X26 29—8-3/4 777 777
5481 108 6 1 W 16X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
5486 123 6 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
5387 1 30 6 1 W 1 6X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
5483 142 6 1 W 16X26 29-8-3/4 777 777
7082 1 70 6 1 W 1 6X26 30-1-3/4 805 805
NUMBER OF PIECES 33 WEIGHT (LBS) 25701

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

168

 

 

Ems: =2:an 33 85E 2 5:3 603 3.“ 398325 .3 wEBSQ ”Q 8&5

.363 530:3 mo
32 some 3:533 can 833 2 82>th
on 3:8 means—o 03338395. $0.02

 

8m 6:33 333.85 as
l/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OL'66 '—°‘

 
 

i. -ll- ,1 I. .1! i. L

169

Table 32: Organized steel with 18 inches as nominal height (Truck 0)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE DESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
4383 18 1 1 W 18X4O 28-10-3/4 1221 1221
2783 23 1 1 W 18X40 29-8-5/8 1200 1200
2881 47 1 1 W 18X55 29-8-5/ 8 1 794 1794
4383 34 3 1 W 1 8X40 29-1 0-3/4 1222 1222
2783 40 3 1 W 18X40 29-8-5/ 8 1200 1 200
2881 66 3 1 W 1 8X55 29—8-5/8 1 795 1 795
4383 1 1 2 3 1 W 18X40 29-1 0-3/4 1222 1222
2783 1 1 7 3 1 W 18X40 29-8-5/8 1200 1200
3184 128 3 1 W 18X55 29-8-5/8 1847 1847
2881 139 3 1 W 18X55 29-8-5/8 1 795 1795

4383A 34 5 1 W 18X4O 29-10-3/4 1216 1216

2783A 40 5 1 W 18X40 29-8-5/8 1 1 89 1 189

2881A 63 5 1 W 18X55 29-8-5/8 1781 1781
6682 77 5 1 W 18X35 29-2-1/2 1066 1 066
6684 98 5 1 W 1 8X35 29-2-1/2 1066 1 066
6784 1 1 0 5 1 W 18X35 29-2-3/4 1071 1071
6783 1 28 5 1 W 1 8X35 29—2-3/4 1080 1 080
6881 135 5 1 W 18X35 29-3- 1072 1072
6681 144 5 1 W 18x40 29-8-5/16 1 194 1 194
6683 145 5 1 W 18X40 29-8-5/16 1 193 1 193
6882 81 6 1 W 18X35 29-2-3/4 1071 1071
6781 99 6 1 W 1 8X35 29-2-3/4 1071 1071
6884 106 6 1 W 18X35 29-2-1/2 1070 1070
6883 121 6 1 W 18X35 29-2-1/2 1070 1 070
6983 1 28 6 1 W 1 8X35 29-2-3/4 1067 1067
6982 134 6 1 W 18X35 28-1 1- 1045 1045
6981 140 6 1 W 1 8X35 29-2-3/4 1 067 1 067

NUMBER OF PIECES 27 WEIGHT (LBS) 33884

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

170

 

Ems: 3888 mm 3658 M2 at? $63 38 88328 mo @83me “E 8&5

.333 88083 mo
33 some 3:533 can 233 8 @0288

com 528,—. on 3:8 $88830 033983.34 ”mHOZ

   

335.85 as

l 1

171

Table 33: Organized steel with 19 inches as nominal height (Truck P)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-
2582 24 1 1 W 14x22 23—2-3/4 539 539
2583 48 1 1 W 14x22 13-0-1/4 315 315
2583 50 1 1 W 14x22 13-0-1/4 315 315
2684 10 2 1 W 14X22 23-6-3/4 636 636
2782 13 2 1 W 14x22 23-6-3/4 639 639
2584 65,66 2 2 W 14X22 19-1-3/4 440 880
2582 41 3 1 W 14x22 23-2-3/4 539 539
2583 67 3 1 W 14X22 13-0-1/4 315 315
2583 69 3 1 W 14X22 13-0-1/4 315 315
2582 1 18 3 1 W 14x22 23-2-3/4 539 539
2583 140 3 1 W 14x22 13-0-1/4 315 315
2583 142 3 1 W 14x22 13-0-1/4 315 315
3081 10 4 1 W 14x22 23-6-3/4 619 619
3082 13 4 1 W 14x22 23-6-3/4 619 619

2386A 33.34.35 4 3 W 14X22 29-8-5/8 773 2319
3081 92 4 1 W 14x22 23-6-3/4 619 619
31 85 96 4 1 W 14X22 23-6-3/4 619 619

2386A 116,117,118 4 3 W 14x22 29-8—5/8 773 2319

2582A 41 5 1 W 14x22 23-2-3/4 531 531

2583A 64 5 1 W 14X22 1 3-0-1/4 307 307

2583A 66 5 1 W 14x22 1 3-0-1/4 307 307
71 85 78 5 1 W 14x22 29-8-1/2 682 682
71 86 79 5 1 W 14X22 30-2-1/4 698 698
7281 80 5 1 W 14x22 30-2-1/4 698 698
7282 81 5 1 W 14x22 30-2-1/4 698 698
71 84 88 5 1 W 14X22 29-8-1/2 682 682
7084 89.90.91 .92 5 4 W 14x22 30-1-5/16 684 2736
71 B1 101 5 1 W 14x22 30-2-1/2 698 698
71 82 1 02 5 1 W 14X22 30-2-1/4 698 698
71 83 103 5 1 W 14X22 30-2-1/4 698 698
7085 1 1 1 5 1 W 14X22 29-10-1/2 678 678
7085 1 17 5 1 W 14X22 29-10-1/2 678 678
5582 1 18,1 19 5 2 W 14X22 29-8—7/1 6 658 1315
7283 122 5 1 W 14X22 1 1 -3-1l4 282 282
7284 123 5 1 W 14X22 1 1-3-1/4 276 276

NUMBER OF PIECES 44 WEIGHT (LBS) 25437

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172

 

Table 34: Organized steel with 14 inches as nominal height (Truck Q)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE IDESC RIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
7085 136 5 1 W 14x22 29-10-1/2 678 678
7085 142 5 1 W 14X22 29-10-1/2 678 678
5583 143 5 1 W 14x22 29-8-7/16 657 657
7681 146 5 1 W 14x22 15-11-1/2 391 391

2684A 1 0 6 1 W 14X22 23-6-3/4 562 562

4683A 1 3 6 1 W 14X22 23—6-3/4 639 639

2584A 68,69 6 2 W 14X22 19-1-3/4 432 863
7086 82 6 1 W 14X22 29-1 0-1/2 678 678
7086 88 6 1 W 14x22 29-1 0-1/2 678 678
5584 89,90 6 2 W 14X22 29-8-7/16 658 1315
7283 93 6 1 W 14x22 1 1 -3-1/4 282 282
7284 94 6 1 W 14X22 1 1 -3-1/4 276 276
7086 107 6 1 W 14X22 29-10-1/2 678 678
7086 1 13 6 1 W 14x22 29-10-1/2 678 678
5585 1 14,1 15 6 2 W 14X22 29-9—1/2 672 1344
7283 1 18 6 1 W 14x22 1 1 -3-1/4 282 282
7085 129 6 1 W 14X22 29-10-1/2 678 678
7085 135 6 1 W 14x22 29-10-1/2 678 678
7382 148 6 1 W 14x22 29-8-1/2 685 685
7384 149 6 1 W 14x22 30-2-1/2 698 698
7386 1 51 6 1 W 14x22 30-2-1/2 698 698
7383 160.161 .162 6 3 W 14x22 30-2-1/4 698 2094
7381 1 73 6 1 W 14x22 30-2-1/2 698 698

NUMBER OF PIECES 28 WEIGHT (LBS) 16908

 

 

 

 

 

173

com 8:“;

33:85 as

  

Ems: 3882: mm 8:08 3 8:5 663 8: 32:8,: .5 wEBSQ ”3 2:9,:

:33 38383 .5 use: :30 3:533 88 2:03
9 @6288 0: 3:8 88826 288089: HmHOZ

 

L OZ'ZL

174

Table 35: Organized steel with 10 inches as nominal height (Truck R)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
2481 25,26 1 2 W 1 0X1 2 3-3-3/4 50 100
2482 28.29.30 1 3 W 10X12 15-3-11/16 194 582
2483 49 1 1 W 10X12 1-5-3/4 28 28
2484 54 1 1 W 10X12 3-1-11/16 48 48
2485 11.12 2 2 W 10X12 9—5-7/1 6 116 232
2487 14 2 1 W 10x12 10-5-3/8 128 128
2581 15 2 1 W 10X12 10-5-3/8 141 141
2488 18 2 1 W 10x12 10-5-3/8 141 141
2487 21 2 1 W 10X12 10-5-3/8 128 128
2486 24.25.26 2 3 W 10X12 9-3-5/16 1 14 342
2981 20 3 1 W 10X12 7-4-3/4 99 99
2983 21 .22 .23 3 3 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 90 270
2982 24.25.26.27 3 4 W 10X12 7-2-3/4 89 356
2983 28.29.30 3 3 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 90 270
2984 31 3 1 W 10x12 7-4-11/16 99 99
2481 42 .43 3 2 W 1 0X1 2 3-3-3/4 50 1 00
2482 45.46.47 3 3 W 10X12 15-3—1 1/16 194 582
2483 68 3 1 W 10X1 2 1-5-3/4 28 28
2484 70 3 1 W 10X12 3-1-11/16 48 48
2981 85 3 1 W 10X12 7-4-3/4 99 99
2983 86.87.88 3 3 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 90 270
2982 94.95.96.97 3 4 W 10X12 7-2-3/4 89 356
2983 103,104,105 3 3 W 10X12 7-3—3/4 90 270
2984 106 3 1 W 10x12 7-4-11/16 99 99
2481 1 19.120 3 2 W 10X12 3-3-3/4 50 100
2482 122,123,124 3 3 W 10X12 15-3-11/16 194 582
2483 141 3 1 W 10X12 1-5—3/4 28 28
2484 143 3 1 W 10X12 3-1-11/16 48 48
2988 11.12 4 2 W 10X12 9-6—1/2 125 250
2989 14.15.16 4 3 W 10X12 9-4-5/16 123 369

2981A 63 4 1 W 10X12 7-4-3/4 109 109

2983A 64,65 4 2 W 1OX12 7-3-3/4 88 176
2985 66 4 1 W 10X12 7-3-1 1/16 90 90
2986 70 4 1 W 10X12 6-11-13/16 87 87

2781A 71 4 1 W 10x12 22-7-1/2 609 609

2984A 77 4 1 W 10X12 7-4-1 1/16 '96 96

2983A 78 4 1 W 10x12 7-3-3/4 88 88

2983A 81 .82 4 2 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 88 176
2988 93.94 4 2 W 10x12 9-6-1/2 125 250
2989 97.98.99 4 3 W 10X12 9-4-5/16 123 369

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

175

 

Table 35: Organized steel with 10 inches as nominal height (Truck R) (Continuation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE DESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
2985 146 4 1 W 10X12 7-3-11/16 90 90
2983A 147.148 4 2 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 88 176
2981A 149 4 1 W 10X12 7-4-3/4 109 109
2781 A 153 4 1 W 10X12 22-7-1/2 609 609
2983A 161 ,162,163 4 3 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 88 264
2984A 164 4 1 W 10X12 7-4-11/16 96 96
2981A 10 5 1 W 10X12 7—4-3/4 109 109
2983A 1 1 .12.13 5 3 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 88 264
2982A 19.20.21 .22 5 4 W 10X12 7-2-3/4 87 347
2984A 31 5 1 W 10X12 7-4-11/16 95 95
2481 A 42.43 5 2 W 10X12 3-3-3/4 47 93
2482A 45.46.47 5 3 W 10X12 15-3-11/16 190 571
2483A 65 5 1 W 1 0X1 2 1-5-3/4 24 24
2484A 67 5 1 W 10X12 3-1-11/16 44 44
5381 83 5 1 W 1 0X1 2 5-9-3/4 80 80
5382 84 5 1 W 10X12 5-9—3/4 72 72
5383 85.86 5 2 W 1 0X1 2 5-9-3/4 72 144
5384 93.94,95.96.97 5 5 W 10X12 5-8-3/4 71 357
5383 104,105,106 5 3 W 10X12 59—3/4 72 216
5385 1 07 5 1 W 1 0X1 2 5-9-3/4 72 72
5386 108 5 1 W 10X12 5-9-11/16 80 80
7487 125 5 1 W 10X12 7-1-15/16 90 90
7486 1 26 5 1 W 10X12 6-9-1/2 92 92
7581 127 5 1 W 10X12 10-11-7/16 142 142
7484 147 5 1 W 10X12 7-11-3/16 177 177
2485A 11,12 6 2 W 10X12 9-5-7/16 114 227
2486A 14.15.16 6 3 W 10X12 9-5-7/16 111 334
2981A 60 6 1 W 1 OX1 2 7-4-3/4 1 09 109
2983A 61 .62 6 2 W 1 0X1 2 7-3-3/4 88 176
2985 63 6 1 W 10X12 7-3-1 1/ 16 90 90
2986 70 6 1 W 10X12 6-11-13/16 86 86
2984A 76 6 1 W 10x12 7-4-1 1/16 95 95
2983A 77.78.79 6 3 W 10X12 7-3-3/4 88 264
7485 96 6 1 W 10x12 13-3—1/2 162 162
7486 97 6 1 W 10X12 6-9-1/2 92 92
7583 98 6 1 W 1OX12 4-10-1/8 69 69
7584 119 6 1 W 10X12 14-1-3/16 172 172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

176

 

Table 35: Organized steel with 10 inches as nominal height (Truck R) (Continuation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE DESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
7585 120 6 1 W 10X12 15-5-1/2 191 191
5482 1 53 6 1 W 1 0X1 2 5-9-3/4 80 80
5384 163.164,165.166,167 6 5 W 10X12 5-9—3/4 71 357
5386 178 6 1 W 10X12 5-9—1 1/16 80 80

NUMBER OF PIECES 143 WEIGHT EBS) 15240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

177

 

Ewfi: 3880: 33 8:08 2 5:5 .063 :5.“ 3030:: .5 wEBEQ “2 8&5

:33 8:383 .5 32 :30 3:533 93
8:83 8 8:58: 5 3:8 9.5820 63:38:15: umHOZ

com 3:351
3:532: $8 _ /.

I

L8'OS ‘

178

Table 36: Organized steel with 24 inches as nominal height (Truck S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPEIDESCRIPTIONILENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
3231 1 3 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2625 2625
3232 2 3 1 w 24X76 29-10-3/4 2625 2625
3233 3 3 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2631 2631
3231 76 3 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2625 2625
3232 77 3 1 w 24X76 294034 2625 2625
3233 78 3 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2631 2631
3331 58 4 1 w 24X76 29-8—3/4 2631 2631
3332 67 4 1 w 24X68 29-10-3/4 2385 2385
3234 74 4 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2625 2625
3331 141 4 1 w 24x76 29-8-3/4 2631 2631
3332 150 4 1 w 24X68 29-10-3/4 2385 2385
3234 156 4 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2625 2625
3231A 1 5 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2616 2616
3232A 2 5 1 w 24X76 29-10-3/4 2615 2615
3233A 3 5 1 w 24X76 29-8-3/4 2616 2616
6031 73 5 1 w 24X68 29-8-3/4 2641 2641
6032 74 5 1 w 24X68 2910-314 2649 2649
NUMBER OF PIECES 17 TRUCK 44181

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

179

 

Table 37: Organized steel with 24 inches as nominal height (Truck T)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK ORDER SEQ QTY SHAPE IDESCRIPTION LENGTH AVG-WT TOT-WT
6083 75 5 1 W 24X68 29-8-3/4 2644 2644
6182 76 5 1 W 24X55 30-2-3/4 2289 2289
6084 99 5 1 W 24X55 30-2-3/4 2289 2289
61 B4 1 09 5 1 W 24X55 29-1 0-3/4 2257 2257
6281 129 5 1 W 24X55 29-1 0-3/4 2261 2261
61 B4 134 5 1 W 24X55 29-10-3/4 2257 2257
3381 55 6 1 W 24X76 29-8-3/4 2631 2631
33 82 64 6 1 W 24X68 29-1 0-3/4 2385 2385
3284 71 6 1 W 24X76 29-8-3/4 2625 2625
61 84 80 6 1 W 24X55 29-1 0-3/4 2257 2257
6282 1 00 6 1 W 24X55 29-1 0-3/4 2257 2257
61 B4 1 05 6 1 W 24X55 29—1 0-3/4 2257 2257
6283 1 22 6 1 W 24X55 29-1 0-3/4 2257 2257
61 84 127 6 1 W 24X55 29-1 0-3/4 2257 2257
62 83 141 6 1 W 24X55 29-1 0-3/4 2257 2257
6383 146 6 1 W 24X55 30-2-3/4 2293 2293
6584 147 6 1 W 24X68 29-8-3/4 2655 2655
6284 1 69 6 1 W 24X55 30-2-3/4 2293 2293

NUMBER OF PIECES 18 TRUCK 42421

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180

 

580: 3880: 3 30:08 em 8:: _003 .5: 83502.: 5 wEBEQ “m: 8&5

:003 8:00:03 5 :32 :30 3:503 :3 00:03
9 3:38: 0: 33:8 @5830 0033:0893 “HP—.02

com 00:89 II/

4393,, .- HE;

58: H I :m-
m: E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"'— 00'98 '

 

181

APPENDIX E

182

LEAN PRODUCTION: ASSEMBLY PLANT

In mass production workers performed only simple tasks repetitively. The foreman was
in charge of giving orders given by the industrial engineer that had the duty of improving
the process. Housekeepers periodically cleaned the work area and repairmen were in
charge of the maintenance. Inspectors checked for quality and large numbers of utility
workers had to be on hand to cover for the high absenteeism rate that could not be
prevented even with high wages. Managers were evaluated according to the number of
cars produced and their quality. It was crucial to meet the production target. That is why
the lines were almost never stopped unless absolutely necessary. Mistakes in the
production line could be fixed at the end in the rework area.

Ohno thought this system was full of muda, the Japanese word for waste. He
believed that the only personnel adding value to the product were the assembly workers
and they could do most of the work performed by the specialists even better. The first
step he took was to group workers into teams with a team leader instead of a foreman.
The team leader would coordinate the team and fill in for any absent worker. The team
was given a set of assembly steps and they had to determine what was the best day to
perform them. Then, Ohno assigned the team the job of housekeeping, minor repairs and
check for quality. At last, the team had to give suggestions of how to improve the process
in collaboration with industrial engineers. This was known as kaizen, a Japanese word for
continuous incremental improvement, and was done periodically.

Probably one of the biggest accomplishments of Ohno’s production line was the
approach taken to prevent errors. In mass production the assembly line almost never

stopped and mistakes grew even bigger as parts were added to the car in the line. The

183

problem was discovered and reworked at the end of the line. Since the line never stopped
and problems were discovered near the end of the line a large number of vehicles had the
same problem. The only person that could stop the line was the senior line manager.
Ohno, on the other hand, placed a cord above every workstation so that workers could
stop the line given any problem. Then the team got together to fix the problem before it
advanced in the line. Production workers would then systematically trace the root cause
of the problem using Ohno’s “five whys” (asking “why” for every layer of the problem in
order to unveil the root cause by the fifth time) and solve the problem once and for all. At
the beginning the line stopped all the time but as the workers gain experience and
problems were completely removed the line started to run continuously almost 100
percent of the time. Toyota’s assembly plants have almost no rework or rework areas.

Defects are also treated differently in each production system. In lean production
the line stops when a defect is detected in order to find the root cause and fix it, while in
mass production the defective products are repaired in a rework area near the end of the
production line.

Table 37 is a summary of lean assembly characteristics in contrast with the
characteristics of mass assembly. The first characteristic is that instead a foreman giving
orders to a group of workers a team leader directs the group and covers for any absent
worker. In addition, lean assembly workers are given more duties than in mass
production. Some of the duties include determining the best way of performing different
assembly steps, specific tasks, minor repairs and quality checks. Another characteristic of
lean assembly workers is that they have the responsibility of recommending

improvements to the process, which is done on a periodic basis. Ohno thought that

184

workers knew better than management how the process works and gave them the
responsibility of refining it. Defects are also treated differently in each production
system. In lean production the line stops when a defect is detected in order to find the
root cause and fix it, while in mass production the defective products are repaired in a

rework area near the end of the production line.

Table 38: Mass vs. Lean Assembly Plant characteristics (Information from Womack et al.

 

 

 

1990)
CHARACTERISTIC
N0. ELEMENT
MASS
PRODUCTION LEAN PRODUCTION
1 Direction Foreman Team leader

 

Specific tasks, minor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Worker Dutles Specrfic tasks repairs, and quality check
Improvement
3 Responsibility Management Worker teams
4 Worker Low High
Empowerment
5 Defects Repair defective Remove root cause when
products detected

 

185

LEAN PRODUCTION: SUPPLY CHAIN
The assembly of the major components to produce a vehicle is the task of the final
assembly plant, which constitutes about 15 percent of the total manufacturing process.
Most of the work involves engineering and fabricating more than 10,000 parts that will
be assembled into maybe 100 major components. Coordinating this process to have
everything on time, at a low cost and with high quality is the challenging job of the final
assembler.

In mass production, the tendency was to integrate the complete production system
into one bureaucratic command structure with orders coming from the top. At Ford and
GM, engineers designed almost all the approximately 10,000 parts of the vehicle. Then
they entered a bidding process with suppliers that could be part of the assembler or
independent companies. Success for suppliers depended on price (lowest bid), quality
(defective parts per 1,000) and delivery reliability. The assembler often switched between
firms, it was considered to be a short-term relationship.

Ohno and others observed many problems of this approach. Suppliers could not
suggest improvements because they were already given the designed parts and did not
have information on the vehicle. Competition limited communication between suppliers,
especially information about advances in manufacturing techniques. Given the
inflexibility of tools in the supplier plants and strict delivery schedules, the suppliers
produce large number of parts that were warehoused. Defective parts were detected in the

assembly plant.

186

To solve these problems Toyota started by organizing its suppliers into functional
tiers. The first tier suppliers were involved in product development. The products
developed had to work in harmony with other systems of the car. First tier suppliers were
encouraged to share information. They did not compete because they were specialized in
one type of component. Within first tier suppliers were second tier suppliers in charge of
fabricating all the individual parts. First tier suppliers fabricated approximately 100 major
components while second tier suppliers fabricated all the small parts that went into those
components.

Toyota’s first tier suppliers were independent companies. Toyota retained part of
the equity of its first tier suppliers. In addition, first tier suppliers shared their equity
between each other. Toyota shared personnel with its suppliers group to deal with
workloads and would transfer senior managers not running for top management positions
in Toyota to senior positions in the supplier firms. Supplier firms were also encouraged to
perform outside work because it generated higher profit margins.

Finally, Ohno created the famous just-in-time (JIT) system called kanban at
Toyota. It was a way to coordinate the flow of parts within the supply system on a daily
basis. Parts were only produced to supply the immediate demand of the next step. The
fragility of the just-in-time system, considered by many to be a disadvantage because it
could bring the whole system to a stop, was considered by Ohno to be a strength because
in this way every member of the production system was forced to think proactively

before the system came to a stop.

187

It took Eiji Toyoda and Ohno more than twenty years to fully implement these
ideas within Toyota’s supply chain with excellent results in productivity, quality and
responsiveness to changing market demands.

Table 38 summarizes lean supply chain characteristics and contrasts them to mass
supply chain characteristics. To begin, the first element describes how lean suppliers are
given the responsibility of designing the parts while in mass production the assembler
designs parts. Under the lean philosophy assemblers have a long-term relationship with
suppliers and they both work as a team sharing information. Moreover, communication
between suppliers is encouraged so that they help each other in the advancement of their
processes. The last element in the table describes how the needs of the main customer

determine the parts and finished products to be fabricated.

Table 39: Mass vs. Lean Supply Chain characteristics (Information from Womack et al.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1990)
CHARACTERISTIC
No. ELEMENT MASS LEAN
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
1 Parts Design Assembler Supplier
Assembler-Supplier
2 Relationship Short-term Long-term
3 Assembler-Supp her .HOId back Share information
Communication information
4 Communication between Low High
suppliers
. Stock Satisfy Demand
5 Production 0f goods (Mass Production) (Just in Time)

 

 

188

LEAN PRODUCTION: CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS
By the 19205 a system of dealers who maintained a large inventory of vehicles was in
place. Each dealer was an independent company on itself. The assembler used the dealer
to absorb the fluctuations in demand. The assembler-dealer relationship was that of
mistrust in which the dealer holds back information about the product in order to
maximize its bargaining position.

After studying this process, the Toyota Motor Sales Company started building a
network of distributors. Some of the were wholly owned and in some cases Toyota
owned some equity. The idea was to develop a life long relationship between assembler,
dealer and consumer by building the dealer into the production system. Gradually the
dealer became the first step in the just-in-time system, sending orders of pre-sold vehicles
that were manufactured and delivered in two to three weeks. The dealer had to work
closely with the assembler to sequence the orders appropriately. Sales staff did not wait
in the show room for potential buyers; instead, they approached the customer directly
through phone calls. Toyota built an enormous database on households and their
preferences. With this information Toyota could predict what type of car would the
consumer want next as their income, family size, driving patterns and tastes changed. In
this way the consumer was directly integrated in the production system and was
considered in the development of new products.

By the 19605 Toyota had fully worked out the principles of lean production and

the other Japanese automakers adopted them as well.

189

THE LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM

The Lean Construction Institute is developing the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS)
as a philosophy, a set of independent functions, rules for decision-making, procedures for
execution of functions, and as implementation tools. According to LCI, it will be a
holistic approach applied to the development of facilities, a new and better way to design

and build capital facilities. The LPDS concept is explained by Ballard (2000a) and is the

basis for this section.

 

 

  

Design
Criteria

\
\7
Needs Design Product
“d Concepts Design
Values

 

7
Fab. and Testing
Logistics and
Turnover

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Lean Design Lean Supply Lean Assembly
Work Flow Control PRODUCTION CONTROL Production Unit
WORK STRUCTURING

 

 

 

@cupancy EvaDA

V

 

Figure 17: Lean Project Delivery System (Ballard 2000a)

190

 

 

The LPDS model (figure 17) consists of four interconnecting phases: Project
Definition, Lean Design, Lean Supply and Lean Assembly. Three modules form each
phase. The project definition phase consists of the modules: needs and values
determination, design criteria, and conceptual design. Lean design consists of conceptual
design, process design and product design. Lean supply is made of the modules product
design, detailed engineering and fabrication and logistics. Lean assembly consists of
fabrication and logistics, site installation and testing and turnover. Production control
extends throughout all project phases and consists of workflow control and production
unit control. The work structuring module also extends throughout the duration of the
project. There is also a post occupancy evaluation module that links the end of one
project with the beginning of the next. In total LPDS is formed by 13 modules. Essential
characteristics of the LPDS include:

o The project is structured and managed as a value generating process

0 Downstream stakeholders are involved in front end planning and design through
cross functional teams

0 Project control has the job of making sure work is executed as opposed to reliance
on afier-the-fact variance detection

0 Optimization efforts are focused on making work flow reliable as opposed to
improving productivity

0 Pull techniques are used to govern the flow of materials and information through
networks of cooperating specialists

0 Capacity and inventory buffers are used to absorb variability

191

E- '1‘er {Ain‘t-G "D a'l..'

0 Feedback loops are incorporated at every level, dedicated to rapid system

adjustment; i.e., learning.

192

THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION CONTROL

There have been several lean construction methodologies developed to remove waste
from the construction process. Probably one of the most important is the Last Planner
System of Production Control by Ballard (2000b). Contrary to traditional project controls
that focus in after the fact detection of variances, Last Planner focuses on causing
activities conform to plans. It has the objective of improving work flow reliability. In
other words it tries to improve how work is handed from one crew or trade to another. As
a result the cost and duration of projects is reduced.

The “last planner” is the person in charge of producing the assignments
communicated to the construction crew. The assignments are the requirements to be
performed by the crew. As explained by Ballard (2000), who developed it, the Last
Planner is a mechanism for transforming what SHOULD be done into what CAN be
done, therefore creating an inventory of ready work from which weekly work plans can
be created. The SHOULD represents the originals plans for the project, the CAN is
determined by the capacity of the crew and the WILL is the commitment made by the last
planner to perform the job.

The Last Planner System has two components: production unit control and work
flow control. The goal of production unit control is to make progressively better
assignments to direct workers through continuous learning and corrective action. To
achieve this goal assignments should be well defined, in the right sequence, in the right
amount, its prerequisites completed and the resources to perform it available. A
production unit is a person or group of people performing the assignments. The standard

to be controlled at the production unit level is Percentage Plan Complete (PPC). PPC can

193

be calculated by dividing the number of planned activities completed by the total number
of planned activities. PPC measures how much of the work assigned by front line
supervisors was realized. Then non-conformances are tracked to reveal root causes that
are used for future improvements. Higher PPC results in higher productivity and
progress.

The goal of work flow control is to proactively cause work to flow across
production units in the best possible sequence and rate. It advocates the use of a
lookahead process that has the function of activity definition, constraint analysis, pulling
work form upstream production units, and matching load and capacity.

Figure 18 is a representation of the Last Planner System of production control.
The SHOULD results from project plans. Then the last planner proactively removes the
constraints for performing these plans. PPC can be calculated by dividing the WILL by
the DID. The Last Planner is based on the principle that by improving work flow
reliability the duration and cost of a project can be reduced as explained in the Parade
Game (Tommelein et al. 1998). Previous implementations of the Last Planner reduced

project duration by up to 55% and improved productivity by up to 37% (Kartam 1995).

194

Project

Objectives

 

 

 

Planning of
Work

 

 

 

 

Last Planner
Process

 

 

Resources Production

 

 

 

Figure 18: The Last Planner System (Ballard, 2000b)

195

WORK STRUCTURING

Another lean construction component is work structuring. Work structuring is developing
a project’s process design and at the same time aligning engineering design, supply chain,
resource allocation and assembly efforts (Howard and Ballard 1999). Ballard (1999)
explains that work structuring has two goals: deliver value to the customer and make
work flow reliable and quick. Work structuring involves answering the following
questions (Tsao et a1. 2000):

1. In what chunks will work be assigned to specialists?

2. How will work chunks be sequenced?

3. How will work be released from one production unit to the next?

4. Will consecutive production units execute work in a continuous flow process or

will their work be de-coupled?

5. Where will de-coupling buffers be needed and how should they be sized?

6. When will different chunks of work be done?
A work chunk is a quantity of work that is passed through production units. When
successive production units have different processing rates de—coupling buffers are placed

between them so that work can be performed continuously.

196

  

  

   

1113111111111!

1293

 

1111111111