Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2019, Article ID 5130835, 22 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5130835

Research Article
A Novel Method for Evaluating Dredging Productivity Using a
Data Envelopment Analysis-Based Technique

Hsin-Hung Lai,1,2 Kuei-Hu Chang ,3 and Chien-Liang Lin2

1
Department of Civil Engineering, R.O.C. Military Academy, Kaohsiung 830, Taiwan
2
Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology 811, Taiwan
3
Department of Management Sciences, R.O.C. Military Academy, Kaohsiung 830, Taiwan

Correspondence should be addressed to Kuei-Hu Chang; evenken2002@gmail.com

Received 22 August 2018; Revised 4 December 2018; Accepted 9 January 2019; Published 21 January 2019

Academic Editor: Caroline Mota

Copyright © 2019 Hsin-Hung Lai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The increase in the frequency of extreme weather has caused the impact of natural disasters to become more extensive. Natural
disasters reduce the effective storage capacity of reservoirs and affect their normal function. Reservoir dredging is a key issue in
the management of water resources and is a complicated multiple-attribute decision-making (MADM) problem. The traditional
assessment of dredging productivity has been performed using a labor productivity method to evaluate the related issues of dredging
performance. However, the traditional labor productivity method only deals with the single-input/single-output evaluation factor
for various forms of productivity. The traditional labor productivity method cannot address complicated MADM problems in the
assessment of dredging productivity. To resolve the limitations of the traditional labor productivity method, this paper extended
data envelopment analysis (DEA) and proposed a novel method for evaluating dredging productivity. The proposed method can
handle various combinations of evaluation factors (single-input, multi-input, single-output, and multioutput). Three real cases of
reservoir dredging are applied to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method. The simulation results show that the proposed
method can be applied generally and correctly assesses the related issues of dredging performance.

1. Introduction disasters. Daigneault et al. [4] reported 3 such methods:

Climate change has led to a rapid increase in the frequency
of extreme weather events, enhancing the risk of natu-
ral disasters. According to the United Nations and other
sources of official statistics, floods are the most common
natural disaster and cause the most fatalities among vari-
ous types of natural disasters. The main cause of flooding
is high-intensity rainfall due to extreme weather. Today,
extreme weather can cause heavy rain, and total rainfall has
increased especially in areas that are affected by tropical cy-
clones.
Over the past 70 years, floods have risen to varying
degrees in various parts of the world, accounting for 53% of
the world’s victims of natural disasters and 42% of deaths due
to such disasters [1]. Hills et al. [2] and Brown and Daigneault
[3] indicated that engineering solutions, such as building
dams, river dredging, and raising the heights of buildings
and strengthening them, should be applied to prevent flood
planting riparian buffers, upland afforestation, and river
dredging. River dredging has the greatest overall benefits
but is expensive. Jeong et al. [5] reported that reservoir
sedimentation is a severe problem worldwide and that there
is an annual decrease in global reservoir storage capacity of
1% due to reservoir deposition.
Reservoir dredging, an excavation activity that is usually
performed underwater, is a key issue for the management
of water resources. Dredging performance is evaluated by
observation and the use of detailed records, and its indicators
include the type of equipment, type of transport, trans-
port distance, reoperation frequency, machine proficiency,
earthwork conditions, and other ongoing projects. Many
scholars have explored the issues that are related to dredging.
For example, Jeong et al. [5] used a multicriteria decision
analysis technique to develop a river dredging management
model in Korea that assigns weights to various dredging-
related factors, including dredging cost and the social and
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
environmental impact, to solve the problem of river dredg-
ing. Nachtmann et al. [6] discussed problem definition
and model formulation of optimal dredge fleet scheduling
to improve the efficiency of dredging projects that were
undertaken by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
This approach can be used by decision-makers to increase
the productivity of dredging machines. Christian and Xie
[7] indicated that appropriate planning and scheduling sig-
nificantly reduce wait times and other delays, rendering
earthworks more efficient and reducing the risk of cost over-
runs.
Dredging performance (productivity) is one of the main
research topics in construction engineering and manage-
ment science. Dredging involves the transportation of large
amounts of earth, requiring the consideration of trans-
portation methods and combinations of complex machinery.
Therefore, reservoir dredging is a complicated multiple-
attribute decision-making (MADM) problem. The traditional
method for assessing dredging productivity uses a labor
productivity method to evaluate the related issues of dredging
performance. Thomas et al. [8] defined productivity as “the
work hour (WH) required to complete a unit of work” and
stated that research on productivity should focus on labor-
intensive work, repetitive work, and important crew work.
The traditional labor productivity method is simple and
widely used in many areas, such as role of the fabricator in
labor productivity [9], the effects of heat stress on construc-
tion labor productivity [10], and quantifying schedule risk
in construction projects [11]. However, the traditional labor
productivity method only deals with the single-input/single-
output evaluation factor of various forms of productiv-
ity.
The data envelopment analysis (DEA) method can effec-
tively solve complicated MADM problems. The DEA method
was first proposed by Charnes et al. [12] as a mathematical
programming method to evaluate the relative efficiency of
decision-making units (DMUs) with multiple inputs and
outputs variables. Although some papers have used the DEA
method to solve productivity-related issues, no research
utilized this method to deal with the evaluation of dredging
productivity [13–17]. This paper extends the DEA method to
propose a novel dredging productivity evaluation method,
solving the issues that are related to the evaluation of dredging
productivity. The author aggregated data on the work area
conditions that are encountered by the army in Taiwan
when building reservoirs and dredging rivers, comparing the
difference between the proposed method and the traditional
labor productivity method about equipment dispatch deci-
sions. These findings would serve as a reference for dredg-
ing task scheduling and equipment allocation by the mili-
tary.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In
Section 2, we review the literature on the traditional dredging
productivity and DEA methods. In Section 3, we propose
a novel dredging productivity evaluation method using a
data envelopment analysis-based technique. In Section 4, we
examine 3 real cases of reservoir dredging to verify the
effectiveness of the proposed method. Finally, in Section 5,
we provide the conclusions and future work.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Traditional Dredging Productivity. Dredging perfor-
mance must cover many aspects, mainly including four
factors: productivity, quality, safety, and timeliness. Most
importantly, productivity must be at an appropriate level.
Overall productivity usually depends on the productivity
of the workers and machinery. It is generally believed that
productivity is the ratio of “output” to “input” in unit time.
As shown in [18]
Total Output
Productivity = (1)
Total Input Resources
Dredging work is often done using a combination of
multiple operations, and traditional productivity calculation
methods can only solve the problem of single input–single
output.
2.2. DEA. Charnes et al. [12] initially proposed the DEA
method as a mathematical programming method to evaluate
the relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs)
(first-mode CCR model). Since then, many scholars have
applied the DEA method to address decision-making-related
issues. For example, Sowunmi et al. [19] used framework of
stochastic frontier analysis of the DEA method to consider
environmentally detrimental inputs and traditional produc-
tion inputs to estimate the efficiency of fishing operations
in sand dredging and non-dredging areas. Widiarto et al.
[20] used DEA to assess the efficiency of microfinance
institutions and analyze the choice of loan methods in not-
for-profit microfinance institutions. Fan et al. [21] evaluated
the ecoefficiency of industrial parks in China using the DEA
model, applying park resources, industrial structure, envi-
ronmental policy, and scale of development as the indicators
that affect ecological efficiency to reflect the characteristics of
ecoefficiency of sustainable development.
DEA is a method of measuring the relative efficiencies of
a group of DMUs that use multiple inputs to produce mul-
tiple outputs. This nonparametric technique was originally
conceived to analyze a set of units. Because the DEA method
can solve MADM problems with single-input–single-output,
single-input–multioutput, or multi-input–multiple-output,
this theoretical basis can be applied widely to real-world
problems.
The CCR model is the standard mode of DEA. The
efficiency of a DMU can be expressed as follows [22]:
𝑔
∑𝑐=1 𝑢𝑐 𝑦𝑐0
Efficiency = (2)
∑𝑚𝑖=1 V𝑖 𝑥𝑖0
where 𝑢𝑐 and V𝑖 denote the output and input weights (inten-
sity), respectively. 𝑦𝑐0 and 𝑥𝑖0 are the outputs 𝑐 and inputs 𝑖 of
the observed DMU.
Charnes et al. [12] developed the first-mode CCR model
for DEA to deal with multi-input and multioutput prob-
lems using a linear programming solution. The CCR model
considers a DEA input with 𝑛 industries or DMUs (the
DMUs in this paper are dredging projects) of the same nature
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

(homogeneous), where each DMU uses 𝑚 input resources relative efficiency, the efficiency can be estimated in a fair and
and produces 𝑔 outputs. For DMU 𝑗, the number of input objective manner.
resources is 𝑥𝑖𝑗 and the number of outputs is 𝑦𝑐𝑗 (𝑐 =
1, . . . , 𝑔). To assess the efficiency of DMU𝑘 , the output/input
3. Proposed DEA-Based Method
ratio 𝑃𝑘 can be used, which is expressed as a percentage
efficiency (that is, 0 ≤ 𝑃𝑘 ≤ 1). Herein, 𝑢𝑘𝑐 is the weight of The possibility of extreme climate changes due to the
the output term 𝑐 and V𝑘𝑖 is the weight of the input term 𝑖. greenhouse effect and rises in sea water temperature in the
In their original model, fractional programming was used to 21st century is growing rapidly. Extreme weather, includ-
obtain the input and output variable weights—namely, V𝑘𝑖 , V𝑘𝑖 , ing typhoons, causes serious river and reservoir earthrock
and 𝑃𝑘 —as expressed by flow problems, which dredging can alleviate. However, river
or reservoir dredging is a complicated multiple-attribute
𝑔
∑𝑐=1 𝑢𝑘𝑐 𝑌𝑐𝑘 decision-making (MADM) problem. The traditional method
Maximize: 𝑃𝑘 = of calculating dredging productivity can only deal with
∑𝑚 𝑘 𝑘
𝑖=1 V𝑖 𝑋𝑖 the problem of single input–single output. But, dredging
𝑢𝑘𝑐 , 𝑌𝑐𝑘 , V𝑘𝑖 , 𝑋𝑘𝑖 ≥ 0, is a systematic problem, influenced by the complexity of
multiple inputs and multiple outputs. To effectively solve
𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑚, 𝑐 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑔 this issue of dredging, this paper used the DEA CCR model
(3) to effectively handle the dredging MADM problem. The
𝑔
∑𝑐=1 𝑢𝑘𝑐 𝑌𝑐𝑟 advantages of the DEA method can handle the complex
Subject to: ≤ 1, 𝑟 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑅
∑𝑚 𝑘 𝑟
𝑖=1 V𝑖 𝑋𝑖
multi-input–multioutput problems for assessing dredging
issues.
𝑢𝑘𝑐 ≥ 𝜀 ≥ 0, 𝑐 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑔 The procedure of the proposed DEA-based method in this
paper comprises five steps.
V𝑘𝑖 ≥ 𝜀 ≥ 0, 𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑚
Step 1. Observe and record the daily number of machines,
−4 earthwork output, and working area status of the dredging
where 𝜀 is a very small positive number (10 ), called a
non-Archimedean constant. First, the fractional program- work area.
ming model that is given by (3) is converted into a linear
programming problem before it is solved. In (3), consider Step 2. Consider the number of each type of instrument
the denominator in the objective function to be equal to 1 as input and earthwork as output. For example, hydraulic
excavators and trucks are the input resources, and dredging
(∑𝑚 𝑘 𝑘
𝑖=1 V𝑖 𝑋𝑖 = 1) and add this to the restriction condition. The productivity is the total output results.
limiting inequality of (3) is multiplied by ∑𝑚 𝑘 𝑘
𝑖=1 V𝑖 𝑋𝑖 on both
sides of the inequality, and the right-hand side is canceled to Step 3. Convert different input-output combinations into a
obtain the following: single-input-single-output model.
𝑔 Single-input-single-output model convert used the fol-
Maximize: 𝑃𝑘 = ∑𝑢𝑘𝑐 𝑌𝑐𝑘 lowing normalized equation:
𝑐=1

𝑚
[𝑥𝑖𝑗 − min (𝑥𝑖𝑗 )]
𝑁𝑖𝑗 =
Subject to: ∑V𝑘𝑖 𝑋𝑘𝑖 =1 max (𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) − min (𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) (5)
𝑖=1

𝑔 𝑚 (4) (𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . 𝑚; 𝑗 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛)
∑𝑢𝑘𝑐 𝑌𝑐𝑟 − ∑V𝑘𝑖 𝑋𝑟𝑖 ≤ 0, 𝑟 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑅
𝑐=1 𝑖=1 where 𝑥𝑖𝑗 is the number of dispatches per day of ith work
day with respect to jth input resource.
𝑢𝑘𝑐 ≥ 𝜀 ≥ 0, 𝑐 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑔
Step 4. Use the DEA CCR model to analyze the efficiency of
V𝑘𝑖 ≥ 𝜀 ≥ 0, 𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑚 multi-input data (DMUs) for assessing dredging productivity.

In (3), the limit is the ratio of “actual output” to “actual
input” of each DMU; the value of that ratio is between 0 and 1.
The optimal values of 𝑢𝑘𝑐 and V𝑘𝑖 are obtained using (3). DMU
efficiency values are not necessarily decided by the manager
in advance.
If 𝑃𝑘 = 1, the rated DMU is “efficient;” if 𝑃𝑘 < 1, the
rated DMU is “not efficient.” As in (4), each DMU must
use its input and output as the objective function once, and
the inputs and outputs of other DMUs are considered to be
restricted. Therefore, using this method for a comparison of
The flowchart of the novel dredging productivity evalua-
tion method is shown in Figure 1.
Step 5. Analyze the dredging productivity evaluation results
and provide suggestions.
4. Case Study
To verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed
method and demonstrate that the traditional method of
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Observe and record the daily number of

Step 1. machines, earthwork output, and working
area status of the dredging work area.

Consider the number of each type of

Step 2.
instrument as input and earthwork as output.

Convert different input-output combinations

Step 3. into a single-input-single-output model.

Use the DEA CCR model to analyze the

Step 4. efficiency of multi-input data (DMUs) for
assessing dredging productivity.

Step 5. Analyze the dredging productivity

evaluation results and provide suggestions.

Figure 1: Flowchart of the proposed dredging productivity evaluation method.

the output is the amount of earthwork output, as shown in

Table 1.

4.1.1. Solution by the Traditional Dredging Productivity Assess-

Figure 2: Nanhua Reservoir dredging diagram.
ment Method. The traditional dredging productivity assess-
ment method is based mainly on calculations by the labor
productivity method [8]. However, the labor productivity
method can only solve the single-input–single-output prob-
lem and cannot solve the multi-input–multioutput problem.
In fact, dredging is a multi-input–multioutput MADM prob-
lem. For multiple input variables, we used (5) to convert them
into a single input variable. The daily dredging productivity is
calculated by the traditional dredging productivity method,
as shown in Table 2.

calculating dredging productivity is a special case of the
proposed method, this paper will apply three practical
dredging cases (Nanhua Reservoir, Cao Gongzhao I, and
Cao Gongzhao II) from sites in Taiwan to calculate dredging
productivity.
4.1.2. Solution by the Proposed Method. The proposed dredg-
ing productivity evaluation method can handle different
combinations of evaluation factors (single-input, multi-
input, single-output, and multioutput) for dredging data. The
following steps describe the proposed method.

Step 1. Observe and record the daily number of machines,

4.1. Case 1: Nanhua Reservoir. Nanhua Reservoir is located
east of Yushan Village, Nanhua District, Tainan City, Taiwan.
The Nanhua Reservoir was built in 1988 and completed in
1994; the reservoir catchment area is 104 square kilometers,
and the reservoir capacity is 158.05 million cubic meters,
as shown in Figure 2. It mainly provides the public water
supply in Tainan and Kaohsiung districts, which also have
sightseeing and tourism functions.
In the dredging case of Nanhua Reservoir, we collected
data for 54 working days from April 8 to May 31, 2011.
The input items include the number of dispatches per day
for hydraulic excavators (SL-330 and 320B) and trucks, and
earthwork output, and working area status of the dredging
work area.
Many of the factors that affect Nanhua Reservoir’s dredg-
ing productivity include weather, transportation distance,
earthwork conditions, road conditions, machine tools, and
people’s feelings. After the assessment, the input variables
were hydraulic excavators (SL-330, 320B) and trucks as the
influential variables for the dredging productivity of Nanhua
Reservoir.
Step 2. Consider the number of each type of instrument as
input and earthwork as output.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

Table 1: 2011 Nanhua Reservoir dredging record data.

Work day Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) (A) Hydraulic excavator (320B) (B) Daily trucks (C) Daily dredging (m3 ) (D)
1 1 5 98 1668
2 1 5 98 1683
3 2 3 100 1701
4 2 3 100 1702
5 1 4 100 1700
6 1 5 99 1696
7 2 3 98 1665
8 2 4 100 1701
9 1 5 101 1716
10 1 5 101 1720
11 2 4 91 1706
12 2 4 93 1717
13 1 5 94 1729
14 1 5 95 1737
15 2 5 96 1747
16 2 5 98 1759
17 1 6 99 1770
18 1 6 100 1782
19 2 5 101 1792
20 2 5 102 1798
21 1 6 104 1826
22 1 6 106 1855
23 2 5 107 1871
24 2 6 108 1895
25 2 6 110 1925
26 2 6 112 1950
27 2 6 114 1985
28 2 6 117 2041
29 2 6 120 2093
30 2 6 116 2089
31 2 6 113 2083
32 2 6 109 2076
33 2 6 106 2067
34 2 6 103 2058
35 2 6 100 2047
36 2 6 97 2036
37 2 6 94 2024
38 2 6 92 2012
39 2 6 89 1999
40 2 6 87 1986
41 2 6 85 1973
42 2 6 83 1959
43 2 6 81 1946
44 2 6 79 1932
45 2 6 78 1918
46 2 6 76 1905
47 2 6 74 1891
48 2 6 73 1877
49 2 6 71 1863
50 2 6 70 1850
51 2 6 68 1836
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 1: Continued.
Work day Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) (A) Hydraulic excavator (320B) (B) Daily trucks (C) Daily dredging (m3 ) (D)
52 2 6 67 1823
53 2 6 66 1809
54 2 6 65 1796

Table 2: Daily dredging productivity by the traditional dredging productivity method.

Input Output Output/Input

Work day
Convert to single input Daily dredging (M3 ) Daily dredging productivity
1 0.422 1668 3950.526
2 0.422 1683 3986.053
3 0.545 1701 3118.500
4 0.545 1702 3120.333
5 0.323 1700 5259.375
6 0.428 1696 3960.000
7 0.533 1665 3121.875
8 0.657 1701 2590.754
9 0.440 1716 3896.422
10 0.440 1720 3905.505
11 0.602 1706 2833.792
12 0.614 1717 2795.773
13 0.398 1729 4344.442
14 0.404 1737 4299.075
15 0.743 1747 2349.905
16 0.756 1759 2328.088
17 0.539 1770 3281.461
18 0.545 1782 3267.000
19 0.774 1792 2316.031
20 0.780 1798 2305.725
21 0.570 1826 3205.213
22 0.582 1855 3188.281
23 0.810 1871 2309.589
24 0.927 1895 2043.627
25 0.939 1925 2049.194
26 0.952 1950 2049.363
27 0.964 1985 2059.906
28 0.982 2041 2078.796
29 1.000 2093 2093.000
30 0.976 2089 2140.901
31 0.958 2083 2175.285
32 0.933 2076 2224.286
33 0.915 2067 2258.642
34 0.897 2058 2294.392
35 0.879 2047 2329.345
36 0.861 2036 2365.775
37 0.842 2024 2402.590
38 0.830 2012 2423.212
39 0.812 1999 2461.455
40 0.800 1986 2482.500
41 0.788 1973 2504.192
42 0.776 1959 2525.273
43 0.764 1946 2548.333
44 0.752 1932 2570.806
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

Table 2: Continued.
Input Output Output/Input
Work day
Convert to single input Daily dredging (M3 ) Daily dredging productivity
45 0.745 1918 2572.927
46 0.733 1905 2597.727
47 0.721 1891 2621.975
48 0.715 1877 2624.619
49 0.703 1863 2649.957
50 0.697 1850 2654.348
51 0.685 1836 2680.885
52 0.679 1823 2685.670
53 0.673 1809 2689.054
54 0.667 1796 2694.000

2011 Nanhua Reservoir productivity curve comparison 2011 Nanhua Reservoir productivity curve comparison
6000.00 1.20

5000.00 1.00
Relative efficiency

0.80
Relative efficiency
4000.00

3000.00 0.60

2000.00 0.40

1000.00 0.20

0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Work day Work day

Traditional method productivity Proposed method (1 input)

Proposed method (3 input)

Figure 3: Daily productivity by the traditional dredging productivity assessment method and proposed method.

The assessment of the productivity output of the assess- As verified by Nanhua Reservoir, we obtain the following
ment case was 1 earthwork (m3). conclusions:

Step 3. Convert different input-output combinations into a (1) Dredging is an MADM problem that may include
single-input-single-output model. single-input–single-output and multi-input–mul-
Based on the results of Table 2, use (5) to convert 3 inputs tioutput. The traditional dredging productivity
into a single-input-single-output model, as shown in Table 3. method can only calculate the single-input–single-
output problem. The proposed dredging productivity
Step 4. Use the DEA CCR model to analyze the efficiency of evaluation method can calculate the dredging
multi-input data (DMUs) for assessing dredging productivity. productivity of single-input–single-output, multiple-
The daily dredging productivity of Nanhua Reservoir was input–single-output, single-input–multiple-output,
calculated using DEAP software. The results are shown in and multi-input–multioutput. Therefore, it is proven
Table 4. that the traditional dredging productivity method is
a special case of the proposed method.
4.1.3. Comparison and Discussion. We calculated the dredg- (2) The calculation results of traditional dredging pro-
ing assessment results for 1-input-1-output and 3-input-1- ductivity, divided by one-day high dredging pro-
output in order to compare the traditional dredging pro- ductivity with the single input results of proposed
ductivity assessment method with the proposed dredging method, are the same. This result implies that the
productivity evaluation method. The results are shown in proposed method can solve more complex problems
Table 4 and Figure 3. of dredging productivity.
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 3: 3 inputs into a single-input-single-output model conversion.

Input Output
Work day
Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) Hydraulic excavator (320B) Daily trucks Convert into a single-input Daily dredging (M3 )
1 0.000 0.667 0.600 0.422 1668
2 0.000 0.667 0.600 0.422 1683
3 1.000 0.000 0.636 0.545 1701
4 1.000 0.000 0.636 0.545 1702
5 0.000 0.333 0.636 0.323 1700
6 0.000 0.667 0.618 0.428 1696
7 1.000 0.000 0.600 0.533 1665
8 1.000 0.333 0.636 0.657 1701
9 0.000 0.667 0.655 0.440 1716
10 0.000 0.667 0.655 0.440 1720
11 1.000 0.333 0.473 0.602 1706
12 1.000 0.333 0.509 0.614 1717
13 0.000 0.667 0.527 0.398 1729
14 0.000 0.667 0.545 0.404 1737
15 1.000 0.667 0.564 0.743 1747
16 1.000 0.667 0.600 0.756 1759
17 0.000 1.000 0.618 0.539 1770
18 0.000 1.000 0.636 0.545 1782
19 1.000 0.667 0.655 0.774 1792
20 1.000 0.667 0.673 0.780 1798
21 0.000 1.000 0.709 0.570 1826
22 0.000 1.000 0.745 0.582 1855
23 1.000 0.667 0.764 0.810 1871
24 1.000 1.000 0.782 0.927 1895
25 1.000 1.000 0.818 0.939 1925
26 1.000 1.000 0.855 0.952 1950
27 1.000 1.000 0.891 0.964 1985
28 1.000 1.000 0.945 0.982 2041
29 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2093
30 1.000 1.000 0.927 0.976 2089
31 1.000 1.000 0.873 0.958 2083
32 1.000 1.000 0.800 0.933 2076
33 1.000 1.000 0.745 0.915 2067
34 1.000 1.000 0.691 0.897 2058
35 1.000 1.000 0.636 0.879 2047
36 1.000 1.000 0.582 0.861 2036
37 1.000 1.000 0.527 0.842 2024
38 1.000 1.000 0.491 0.830 2012
39 1.000 1.000 0.436 0.812 1999
40 1.000 1.000 0.400 0.800 1986
41 1.000 1.000 0.364 0.788 1973
42 1.000 1.000 0.327 0.776 1959
43 1.000 1.000 0.291 0.764 1946
44 1.000 1.000 0.255 0.752 1932
45 1.000 1.000 0.236 0.745 1918
46 1.000 1.000 0.200 0.733 1905
47 1.000 1.000 0.164 0.721 1891
48 1.000 1.000 0.145 0.715 1877
49 1.000 1.000 0.109 0.703 1863
50 1.000 1.000 0.091 0.697 1850
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

Table 3: Continued.
Input Output
Work day
Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) Hydraulic excavator (320B) Daily trucks Convert into a single-input Daily dredging (M3 )
51 1.000 1.000 0.055 0.685 1836
52 1.000 1.000 0.036 0.679 1823
53 1.000 1.000 0.018 0.673 1809
54 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.667 1796

Table 4: Dredging assessment results for the traditional dredging productivity assessment method and proposed method.

Traditional dredging productivity method Proposed method

Work day Dredging productivity result/One-day
Dredging productivity result 1 input result 3 input result
high dredging productivity
1 3950.526 0.751 0.751 0.952
2 3986.053 0.758 0.758 0.961
3 3118.500 0.593 0.593 0.999
4 3120.333 0.593 0.593 1.000
5 5259.375 1.000 1.000 1.000
6 3960.000 0.753 0.753 0.965
7 3121.875 0.594 0.594 0.992
8 2590.754 0.493 0.493 0.920
9 3896.422 0.741 0.741 0.971
10 3905.505 0.743 0.743 0.973
11 2833.792 0.539 0.539 0.968
12 2795.773 0.532 0.532 0.964
13 4344.442 0.826 0.826 1.000
14 4299.075 0.817 0.817 1.000
15 2349.905 0.447 0.447 0.892
16 2328.088 0.443 0.443 0.890
17 3281.461 0.624 0.624 0.994
18 3267.000 0.621 0.621 0.994
19 2316.031 0.440 0.440 0.893
20 2305.725 0.438 0.438 0.892
21 3205.213 0.609 0.609 0.996
22 3188.281 0.606 0.606 1.000
23 2309.589 0.439 0.439 0.907
24 2043.627 0.389 0.389 0.853
25 2049.194 0.390 0.390 0.859
26 2049.363 0.390 0.390 0.863
27 2059.906 0.392 0.392 0.871
28 2078.796 0.395 0.395 0.885
29 2093.000 0.398 0.398 0.896
30 2140.901 0.407 0.407 0.909
31 2175.285 0.414 0.414 0.918
32 2224.286 0.423 0.423 0.931
33 2258.642 0.429 0.429 0.939
34 2294.392 0.436 0.436 0.947
35 2329.345 0.443 0.443 0.955
36 2365.775 0.450 0.450 0.963
37 2402.590 0.457 0.457 0.970
38 2423.212 0.461 0.461 0.973
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 4: Continued.
Traditional dredging productivity method Proposed method
Work day Dredging productivity result/One-day
Dredging productivity result 1 input result 3 input result
high dredging productivity
39 2461.455 0.468 0.468 0.981
40 2482.500 0.472 0.472 0.984
41 2504.192 0.476 0.476 0.987
42 2525.273 0.480 0.480 0.989
43 2548.333 0.485 0.485 0.992
44 2570.806 0.489 0.489 0.995
45 2572.927 0.489 0.489 0.993
46 2597.727 0.494 0.494 0.996
47 2621.975 0.499 0.499 0.999
48 2624.619 0.499 0.499 0.996
49 2649.957 0.504 0.504 0.999
50 2654.348 0.505 0.505 0.997
51 2680.885 0.510 0.510 1.000
52 2685.670 0.511 0.511 1.000
53 2689.054 0.511 0.511 1.000
54 2694.000 0.512 0.512 1.000

variables of Cao Gongzhao I into a single input variable. Use

(1) and (5) to calculate daily dredging productivity, as shown
in Table 6.

4.2.2. Solution by the Proposed Method (Cao Gongzhao I).

Using the DEA CCR model, the daily dredging productivity
for Cao Gongzhao I is calculated; the results are shown in
Table 7.

4.2.3. Comparison and Discussion. We calculate the dredging

Figure 4: Cao Gongzhao I dredging diagram.
4.2. Case 2: Cao Gongzhao I. Cao Gongzhao was built in
1919, across the areas of Pingtung and Kaohsiung, Taiwan. It
is one of the important sources of irrigation water for early
farmland in Taiwan. The Cao Gongzhao I dredging work area
has a width of 800 meters, length of 500 meters, and an area
of 40 hectares. The depth of digging is 2.5 meters, and the
planned dredging volume is 1 million cubic meters, as shown
in Figure 4.
The case of Cao Gongzhao I has 66 days of dredging
records. The input items include the number of dispatches per
day for hydraulic excavators (SL-330 and 320B) and trucks,
and the output is the amount of earthwork output, as shown
in Table 5.
4.2.1. Solution by the Traditional Dredging Productivity Assess-
ment Method (Cao Gongzhao I). Transform the multi-input
assessment results for 1-input-1-output and 3-input-1output to
compare the dredging assessment results for Cao Gongzhao
I which is between the traditional and the proposed dredging
productivity evaluation methods. See Table 8 and Figure 5.
Based on the results of Table 8 and Figure 5, the calcu-
lation results of traditional dredging productivity, divided
by one-day high dredging productivity with the single input
results of proposed method, are the same. Therefore, the
traditional dredging productivity assessment method can be
viewed as a special case of the novel dredging productivity
evaluation method.
4.3. Case 3: Cao Gongzhao II. Phase 1 dredging was imple-
mented at Cao Gongzhao in 2011, and the second phase of
dredging was carried out in the same region in 2012, for a total
of 38 days. The records are shown in Table 9.
4.3.1. Solution by the Traditional Dredging Productivity Assess-
ment Method (Cao Gongzhao II). The multi-input variables
for Cao Gongzhao II were transformed into a single input
quantity. Use (1) and (5) to calculated daily dredging produc-
tivity, as shown in Table 10.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

Table 5: 2011 Cao Gongzhao I dredging record data.

Work day Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) (A) Hydraulic excavator (320B) (B) Daily trucks (C) Daily dredging (m3 )(D)
1 2 7 79 1086
2 1 8 175 2936
3 1 8 385 6804
4 2 7 235 4147
5 2 7 178 3811
6 2 7 194 3763
7 2 7 353 6135
8 1 8 142 2087
9 1 8 194 4203
10 2 7 203 4565
11 2 7 292 4857
12 2 7 292 5280
13 2 7 193 3288
14 1 8 193 5367
15 1 8 296 5078
16 2 7 267 4569
17 2 7 275 4636
18 2 7 277 4650
19 2 7 302 5173
20 1 8 351 6055
21 2 7 427 7397
22 2 7 443 7741
23 2 7 409 7164
24 1 8 310 5431
25 2 7 333 5835
26 2 7 359 6290
27 2 7 443 7751
28 1 8 343 6007
29 1 8 403 7062
30 2 7 412 7210
31 2 7 423 7396
32 2 7 372 6510
33 2 7 421 7375
34 1 8 423 7410
35 2 7 422 7384
36 2 7 435 7620
37 2 7 437 7627
38 1 8 449 7841
39 2 7 449 7847
40 2 7 450 7866
41 2 7 434 7592
42 2 7 436 7625
43 1 8 426 7452
44 2 7 431 7540
45 2 7 440 7708
46 2 7 437 7643
47 1 8 383 6703
48 1 8 433 7580
49 1 8 436 7634
50 2 7 443 7754
51 2 7 435 7616
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 5: Continued.
Work day Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) (A) Hydraulic excavator (320B) (B) Daily trucks (C) Daily dredging (m3 )(D)
52 1 8 437 7643
53 2 7 433 7577
54 2 7 431 6754
55 2 7 443 7746
56 2 7 447 7752
57 1 8 10 400
58 1 8 10 400
59 2 7 303 5298
60 2 7 129 2266
61 2 7 40 686
62 2 7 252 5177
63 1 8 380 6651
64 1 8 355 6212
65 2 7 303 5298
66 2 7 129 2266

Table 6: Daily dredging productivity by the traditional dredging productivity method.

Input Output Output/Input

Work day
Convert to single input Daily dredging (M3 ) Daily dredging productivity
1 0.386 79 2816.346
2 0.458 175 6405.818
3 0.617 385 11019.975
4 0.504 235 8231.639
5 0.461 178 8273.882
6 0.473 194 7960.192
7 0.593 353 10342.529
8 0.433 142 4816.154
9 0.473 194 8890.962
10 0.480 203 9519.431
11 0.547 292 8879.834
12 0.547 292 9653.186
13 0.472 193 6966.549
14 0.472 193 11371.493
15 0.550 296 9232.727
16 0.528 267 8652.912
17 0.534 275 8680.170
18 0.536 277 8681.754
19 0.555 302 9328.361
20 0.592 351 10233.803
21 0.649 427 11393.279
22 0.661 443 11704.605
23 0.636 409 11271.132
24 0.561 310 9687.730
25 0.578 333 10094.626
26 0.598 359 10523.194
27 0.661 443 11719.725
28 0.586 343 10257.749
29 0.631 403 11190.684
30 0.638 412 11303.088
31 0.646 423 11445.158
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

Table 6: Continued.
Input Output Output/Input
Work day
Convert to single input Daily dredging (M3 ) Daily dredging productivity
32 0.608 372 10714.713
33 0.645 421 11439.483
34 0.646 423 11466.823
35 0.645 422 11440.000
36 0.655 435 11628.208
37 0.657 437 11612.042
38 0.666 449 11774.881
39 0.666 449 11783.891
40 0.667 450 11799.000
41 0.655 434 11598.889
42 0.656 436 11622.402
43 0.648 426 11491.402
44 0.652 431 11559.582
45 0.659 440 11694.897
46 0.657 437 11636.401
47 0.616 383 10883.100
48 0.654 433 11593.975
49 0.656 436 11636.120
50 0.661 443 11724.261
51 0.655 435 11622.104
52 0.657 437 11636.401
53 0.654 433 11589.386
54 0.652 431 10354.564
55 0.661 443 11712.165
56 0.664 447 11667.777
57 0.333 10 1200.000
58 0.333 10 1200.000
59 0.555 303 9540.737
60 0.423 129 5350.841
61 0.356 40 1926.638
62 0.517 252 10020.000
63 0.614 380 10838.667
64 0.595 355 10445.656
65 0.555 303 9540.737
66 0.423 129 5350.841

Table 7: Daily dredging productivity by the proposed method.

Input Output Daily dredging productivity

Work day
Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) Hydraulic excavator (320B) Daily trucks Daily dredging (M3 ) 1 input result 3 input result
1 2 7 79 1086 0.239 0.494
2 1 8 175 2936 0.543 0.603
3 1 8 385 6804 0.934 0.942
4 2 7 235 4147 0.698 0.762
5 2 7 178 3811 0.701 0.794
6 2 7 194 3763 0.675 0.756
7 2 7 353 6135 0.877 0.906
8 1 8 142 2087 0.408 0.529
9 1 8 194 4203 0.754 0.782
10 2 7 203 4565 0.807 0.898
14 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 7: Continued.
Input Output Daily dredging productivity
Work day
Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) Hydraulic excavator (320B) Daily trucks Daily dredging (M3 ) 1 input result 3 input result
11 2 7 292 4857 0.753 0.798
12 2 7 292 5280 0.818 0.868
13 2 7 193 3288 0.590 0.662
14 1 8 193 5367 0.964 1.000
15 1 8 296 5078 0.783 0.798
16 2 7 267 4569 0.733 0.787
17 2 7 275 4636 0.736 0.787
18 2 7 277 4650 0.736 0.786
19 2 7 302 5173 0.791 0.835
20 1 8 351 6055 0.867 0.878
21 2 7 427 7397 0.966 0.972
22 2 7 443 7741 0.992 0.994
23 2 7 409 7164 0.955 0.968
24 1 8 310 5431 0.821 0.836
25 2 7 333 5835 0.856 0.891
26 2 7 359 6290 0.892 0.920
27 2 7 443 7751 0.993 0.995
28 1 8 343 6007 0.869 0.881
29 1 8 403 7062 0.948 0.955
30 2 7 412 7210 0.958 0.969
31 2 7 423 7396 0.970 0.978
32 2 7 372 6510 0.908 0.932
33 2 7 421 7375 0.970 0.978
34 1 8 423 7410 0.972 0.976
35 2 7 422 7384 0.970 0.978
36 2 7 435 7620 0.986 0.99
37 2 7 437 7627 0.984 0.988
38 1 8 449 7841 0.998 1.000
39 2 7 449 7847 0.999 0.999
40 2 7 450 7866 1.000 1.000
41 2 7 434 7592 0.983 0.988
42 2 7 436 7625 0.985 0.989
43 1 8 426 7452 0.974 0.978
44 2 7 431 7540 0.980 0.985
45 2 7 440 7708 0.991 0.994
46 2 7 437 7643 0.986 0.990
47 1 8 383 6703 0.922 0.931
48 1 8 433 7580 0.983 0.986
49 1 8 436 7634 0.986 0.989
50 2 7 443 7754 0.994 0.996
51 2 7 435 7616 0.985 0.989
52 1 8 437 7643 0.986 0.989
53 2 7 433 7577 0.982 0.987
54 2 7 431 6754 0.878 0.883
55 2 7 443 7746 0.993 0.995
56 2 7 447 7752 0.989 0.990
57 1 8 10 400 0.102 0.360
58 1 8 10 400 0.102 0.360
59 2 7 303 5298 0.809 0.853
60 2 7 129 2266 0.453 0.632
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 15

Table 7: Continued.
Input Output Daily dredging productivity
Work day
Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) Hydraulic excavator (320B) Daily trucks Daily dredging (M3 ) 1 input result 3 input result
61 2 7 40 686 0.163 0.617
62 2 7 252 5177 0.849 0.919
63 1 8 380 6651 0.919 0.927
64 1 8 355 6212 0.885 0.896
65 2 7 303 5298 0.809 0.853
66 2 7 129 2266 0.453 0.632

Table 8: The dredging assessment results for Cao Gongzhao I.

Traditional dredging productivity method Proposed method

Work day Dredging productivity result/One-day
Dredging productivity result 1 input result 3 input result
high dredging productivity
1 2816.346 0.239 0.239 0.494
2 6405.818 0.543 0.543 0.603
3 11019.975 0.934 0.934 0.942
4 8231.639 0.698 0.698 0.762
5 8273.882 0.701 0.701 0.794
6 7960.192 0.675 0.675 0.756
7 10342.529 0.877 0.877 0.906
8 4816.154 0.408 0.408 0.529
9 8890.962 0.754 0.754 0.782
10 9519.431 0.807 0.807 0.898
11 8879.834 0.753 0.753 0.798
12 9653.186 0.818 0.818 0.868
13 6966.549 0.590 0.590 0.662
14 11371.493 0.964 0.964 1.000
15 9232.727 0.783 0.783 0.798
16 8652.912 0.733 0.733 0.787
17 8680.170 0.736 0.736 0.787
18 8681.754 0.736 0.736 0.786
19 9328.361 0.791 0.791 0.835
20 10233.803 0.867 0.867 0.878
21 11393.279 0.966 0.966 0.972
22 11704.605 0.992 0.992 0.994
23 11271.132 0.955 0.955 0.968
24 9687.730 0.821 0.821 0.836
25 10094.626 0.856 0.856 0.891
26 10523.194 0.892 0.892 0.920
27 11719.725 0.993 0.993 0.995
28 10257.749 0.869 0.869 0.881
29 11190.684 0.948 0.948 0.955
30 11303.088 0.958 0.958 0.969
31 11445.158 0.970 0.970 0.978
32 10714.713 0.908 0.908 0.932
33 11439.483 0.970 0.970 0.978
34 11466.823 0.972 0.972 0.976
35 11440.000 0.970 0.970 0.978
16 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 8: Continued.

Traditional dredging productivity method Proposed method

Work day Dredging productivity result/One-day
Dredging productivity result 1 input result 3 input result
high dredging productivity
36 11628.208 0.986 0.986 0.990
37 11612.042 0.984 0.984 0.988
38 11774.881 0.998 0.998 1.000
39 11783.891 0.999 0.999 0.999
40 11799.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
41 11598.889 0.983 0.983 0.988
42 11622.402 0.985 0.985 0.989
43 11491.402 0.974 0.974 0.978
44 11559.582 0.980 0.980 0.985
45 11694.897 0.991 0.991 0.994
46 11636.401 0.986 0.986 0.990
47 10883.100 0.922 0.922 0.931
48 11593.975 0.983 0.983 0.986
49 11636.120 0.986 0.986 0.989
50 11724.261 0.994 0.994 0.996
51 11622.104 0.985 0.985 0.989
52 11636.401 0.986 0.986 0.989
53 11589.386 0.982 0.982 0.987
54 10354.564 0.878 0.878 0.883
55 11712.165 0.993 0.993 0.995
56 11667.777 0.989 0.989 0.990
57 1200.000 0.102 0.102 0.360
58 1200.000 0.102 0.102 0.360
59 9540.737 0.809 0.809 0.853
60 5350.841 0.453 0.453 0.632
61 1926.638 0.163 0.163 0.617
62 10020.000 0.849 0.849 0.919
63 10838.667 0.919 0.919 0.927
64 10445.656 0.885 0.885 0.896
65 9540.737 0.809 0.809 0.853
66 5350.841 0.453 0.453 0.632

Table 9: 2012 Cao Gongzhao II dredging record data.

Work day Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) (A) Hydraulic excavator (320B) (B) Daily trucks (C) Daily dredging (m3 )(D)
1 3 10 13 320
2 3 10 9 6012
3 2 13 10 6210
4 2 13 8 8033
5 2 14 8 8217
6 3 14 7 8210
7 3 15 6 8858
8 3 14 7 10423
9 3 14 7 10713
10 3 14 7 10785
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 17

Table 9: Continued.
Work day Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) (A) Hydraulic excavator (320B) (B) Daily trucks (C) Daily dredging (m3 )(D)
11 3 14 7 10634
12 3 14 7 10220
13 3 14 7 12031
14 3 14 7 12523
15 3 14 8 12666
16 3 14 8 12804
17 3 14 9 14181
18 3 16 11 8091
19 3 15 9 14518
20 3 15 8 14312
21 3 14 8 15270
22 3 13 8 15373
23 3 13 8 15413
24 3 14 9 16211
25 3 15 7 16503
26 3 14 7 16366
27 2 13 8 17005
28 2 13 7 17832
29 2 13 4 16527
30 2 13 7 16583
31 2 13 6 15589
32 2 13 6 15056
33 1 12 3 15037
34 1 11 4 16142
35 1 9 2 15861
36 1 7 1 4916
37 1 5 3 5057
38 1 1 2 3775

Table 10: Daily dredging productivity of Cao Gongzhao II by the traditional dredging productivity method.

Input Output Output/Input

Work day
Convert to single input Daily dredging (M3 ) Daily dredging productivity
1 0.867 320 369.231
2 0.756 6012 7957.059
3 0.683 6210 9087.805
4 0.628 8033 12795.929
5 0.650 8217 12641.538
6 0.789 8210 10407.042
7 0.783 8858 11308.085
8 0.789 10423 13212.254
9 0.789 10713 13579.859
10 0.789 10785 13671.127
11 0.789 10634 13479.718
12 0.789 10220 12954.930
13 0.789 12031 15250.563
14 0.789 12523 15874.225
15 0.817 12666 15509.388
16 0.817 12804 15678.367
18 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 10: Continued.

Input Output Output/Input
Work day
Convert to single input Daily dredging (M3 ) Daily dredging productivity
17 0.844 14181 16793.289
18 0.944 8091 8566.941
19 0.867 14518 16751.538
20 0.839 14312 17060.662
21 0.817 15270 18697.959
22 0.794 15373 19350.629
23 0.794 15413 19400.979
24 0.844 16211 19197.237
25 0.811 16503 20346.164
26 0.789 16366 20745.634
27 0.628 17005 27087.611
28 0.600 17832 29720.000
29 0.517 16527 31987.742
30 0.600 16583 27638.333
31 0.572 15589 27242.913
32 0.572 15056 26311.456
33 0.300 15037 50123.333
34 0.306 16142 52828.364
35 0.206 15861 77161.622
36 0.133 4916 36870.000
37 0.144 5057 35010.000
38 0.028 3775 135900.000

 Cao Gongzhao productivity curve comparison  Cao Gongzhao productivity curve comparison
14000.00 1.20

12000.00
1.00

10000.00
Relative efficiency
Relative efficiency

0.80
8000.00
0.60
6000.00
0.40
4000.00

2000.00 0.20

0.00 0.00
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65

Work day Work day

Traditional method productivity Proposed method (1 input)

Proposed method (3 input)

Figure 5: Comparison of 2011 Cao Gongzhao I productivity curves.

4.3.2. Solution by the Proposed Method (Cao Gongzhao II).
Using the DEA CCR model, the daily dredging productivity
for Cao Gongzhao II is calculated; the results are shown in
Table 11.
4.3.3. Comparison and Discussion. The dredging assessment
results of Cao Gongzhao II by the traditional dredging pro-
ductivity assessment method and the proposed method are
shown in Table 12 and Figure 6.
The dredging case of Cao Gongzhao II yields the follow-
ing conclusions:
(1) The traditional dredging productivity method can
only calculate the single-input–single-output prob-
lem. The proposed dredging productivity evalua-
tion method can calculate the dredging productivity
of multi-input–multioutput problem. Based on the
results of Table 12, the traditional dredging productiv-
ity calculations are divided by one-day high dredging
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 19

Table 11: Daily dredging productivity of Cao Gongzhao II by the proposed method.

Input Output Daily dredging productivity

Work day
Hydraulic excavator (SL-330) Hydraulic excavator (320B) Daily trucks Daily dredging (M3 ) 1 input result 3 input result
1 3 10 13 320 0.003 0.015
2 3 10 9 6012 0.059 0.275
3 2 13 10 6210 0.067 0.257
4 2 13 8 8033 0.094 0.332
5 2 14 8 8217 0.093 0.320
6 3 14 7 8210 0.077 0.294
7 3 15 6 8858 0.083 0.301
8 3 14 7 10423 0.097 0.373
9 3 14 7 10713 0.100 0.383
10 3 14 7 10785 0.101 0.386
11 3 14 7 10634 0.099 0.381
12 3 14 7 10220 0.095 0.366
13 3 14 7 12031 0.112 0.431
14 3 14 7 12523 0.117 0.448
15 3 14 8 12666 0.114 0.453
16 3 14 8 12804 0.115 0.458
17 3 14 9 14181 0.124 0.507
18 3 16 11 8091 0.063 0.261
19 3 15 9 14518 0.123 0.493
20 3 15 8 14312 0.126 0.486
21 3 14 8 15270 0.138 0.546
22 3 13 8 15373 0.142 0.582
23 3 13 8 15413 0.143 0.583
24 3 14 9 16211 0.141 0.580
25 3 15 7 16503 0.150 0.560
26 3 14 7 16366 0.153 0.586
27 2 13 8 17005 0.199 0.704
28 2 13 7 17832 0.219 0.738
29 2 13 4 16527 0.235 0.684
30 2 13 7 16583 0.203 0.686
31 2 13 6 15589 0.200 0.645
32 2 13 6 15056 0.194 0.623
33 1 12 3 15037 0.369 0.940
34 1 11 4 16142 0.389 1.000
35 1 9 2 15861 0.568 1.000
36 1 7 1 4916 0.271 0.470
37 1 5 3 5057 0.258 1.000
38 1 1 2 3775 1.000 1.000

productivity with the ingle input results of proposed
method are the same. Therefore, it is proven that the
traditional dredging productivity method is a special
case of the proposed method.
(2) Under the condition that the dredging area and con-
ditions are the same, the calculation results by the
traditional dredging productivity method for Cao
Gongzhao II (as shown by the red line in Figure 6)
were divided by one-day high dredging productivity,
which is the same with the results of the proposed
method (green line shown).
5. Conclusions
In the 21st century, many earthrock flow disasters that are
caused by extreme climate have deeply affected many coun-
tries and have caused a gradual decline in the supply of fresh-
20 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 12: The dredging assessment results for Cao Gongzhao II.

Traditional dredging productivity method Proposed method

Work day Dredging Dredging productivity result/One-day
1 input result 3 input result
productivity result high dredging productivity
1 369.231 0.003 0.003 0.015
2 7957.059 0.059 0.059 0.275
3 9087.805 0.067 0.067 0.257
4 12795.929 0.094 0.094 0.332
5 12641.538 0.093 0.093 0.320
6 10407.042 0.077 0.077 0.294
7 11308.085 0.083 0.083 0.301
8 13212.254 0.097 0.097 0.373
9 13579.859 0.100 0.100 0.383
10 13671.127 0.101 0.101 0.386
11 13479.718 0.099 0.099 0.381
12 12954.930 0.095 0.095 0.366
13 15250.563 0.112 0.112 0.431
14 15874.225 0.117 0.117 0.448
15 15509.388 0.114 0.114 0.453
16 15678.367 0.115 0.115 0.458
17 16793.289 0.124 0.124 0.507
18 8566.941 0.063 0.063 0.261
19 16751.538 0.123 0.123 0.493
20 17060.662 0.126 0.126 0.486
21 18697.959 0.138 0.138 0.546
22 19350.629 0.142 0.142 0.582
23 19400.979 0.143 0.143 0.583
24 19197.237 0.141 0.141 0.580
25 20346.164 0.150 0.150 0.560
26 20745.634 0.153 0.153 0.586
27 27087.611 0.199 0.199 0.704
28 29720.000 0.219 0.219 0.738
29 31987.742 0.235 0.235 0.684
30 27638.333 0.203 0.203 0.686
31 27242.913 0.200 0.200 0.645
32 26311.456 0.194 0.194 0.623
33 50123.333 0.369 0.369 0.940
34 52828.364 0.389 0.389 1.000
35 77161.622 0.568 0.568 1.000
36 36870.000 0.271 0.271 0.470
37 35010.000 0.258 0.258 1.000
38 135900.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

water, making the exploitation of water resources a national
effort. Dredging is a key issue in the preservation of water
resources. Improving the preservation and application of
water resources to ensure a plentiful freshwater supply
through dredging is a topic that every country is studying
intently.
Dredging assessments primarily use productivity to rep-
resent the effectiveness of dredging. The evaluation of dredg-
ing also includes input variables, such as tools, trucks, and
manpower, and the complexity of the output results, such
as earthwork, flow rate, and water storage increase. The
traditional dredging assessment method mainly uses work
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 21

2012 Cao Gongzhao productivity curve comparison 2012 Cao Gongzhao productivity curve comparison
160000.00 1.20

140000.00
1.00
120000.00
Relative efficiency

Relative efficiency
0.80
100000.00

80000.00 0.60

60000.00
0.40
40000.00
0.20
20000.00

0.00 0.00

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Work day Work day

Traditional method productivity Proposed method (1 input)

Proposed method (3 input)
Figure 6: Comparison of 2012 Cao Gongzhao II productivity curves.

force productivity to calculate the dredging performance [8].
Although the traditional workforce productivity method is
simple to calculate, this method can only deal with single-
input variables and single-output outcomes and cannot solve
multi-input and -output multicriteria dredging decision-
making problems.
To solve the related issue of dredging assessments, this
paper extended the DEA method to handle different com-
binations of evaluation factors (single-input, multi-input,
single-output, and multioutput). Three real cases of reservoir
dredging were applied to verify the effectiveness of the
proposed method. The simulation results show that the tra-
ditional dredging productivity assessment can be viewed as a
special case of the proposed dredging productivity evaluation
method. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use the proposed
method to calculate daily dredging productivity.
Subsequent studies can improve the risk assessment of
natural and man-made factors, such as climate, machinery,
earthwork conditions, the proficiency of operators, and
managers’ methods; consider the subjective and objective
weights of each evaluation factors of dredging to further
explore dredging topics. In terms of calculation methods,
use different DEA model (such as network data envelopment
analysis model, BBC model, and weighted slack-based Mea-
sures model) to evaluate the dredging productivity.
Data Availability
The dredging productivity data used to support the findings
of this study are included within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan, for financially supporting this research
under Contract nos. MOST 106-2410-H-145-001 and MOST
107-2410-H-145-001.
References
[1] D. Guha-Sapir, P. H. Hoyois, and R. Below, Annual Disaster
Statistical Review 2012: The Numbers And Trends, Centre for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Institute
of Health and Society (IRSS), Catholic University of Louvain,
Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
[2] T. Hills, T. J. B. Carruthers, S. Chape, and P. Donohoe, “A social
and ecological imperative for ecosystem-based adaptation to
climate change in the Pacific Islands,” Sustainability Science, vol.
8, no. 3, pp. 455–467, 2013.
[3] P. Brown and A. Daigneault, “Cost-benefit analysis of managing
the invasive African tulip tree (Spathodea campanulata) in the
Pacific,” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 39, pp. 65–76, 2014.
[4] A. Daigneault, P. Brown, and D. Gawith, “Dredging versus
hedging: Comparing hard infrastructure to ecosystem-based
adaptation to flooding,” Ecological Economics, vol. 122, pp. 25–
35, 2016.
[5] A. Jeong, S. Kim, M. Kim, and K. Jung, “Development of
Optimization Model for River Dredging Management Using
MCDA,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Hydroinformatics - Smart Water for the Future, HIC 2016, pp.
369–373, Republic of Korea, August 2016.
[6] H. Nachtmann, K. N. Mitchell, C. E. Rainwater, R. Gedik, and E.
A. Pohl, “Optimal dredge fleet scheduling within environmental
work windows,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2426, pp.
11–19, 2014.
[7] J. Christian and T. Xing Xie, “More realistic intelligence in
earthmoving estimates,” in Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineer-
ing, pp. 387–396, 1994.
[8] H. R. Thomas, S. R. Sanders, and S. Bilai, “Comparison of
labor productivity,” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 635–650, 1992.
[9] H. R. Thomas and V. E. Sanvido, “Role of the fabricator in
labor productivity,” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, vol. 126, no. 5, pp. 358–365, 2000.
22 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

[10] W. Yi and A. Chan, “Effects of Heat Stress on Construction

Labor Productivity in Hong Kong: A Case Study of Rebar
Workers,” International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, vol. 14, no. 9, article no. 1055, 2017.
[11] V. T. Luu, S.-Y. Kim, N. V. Tuan, and S. O. Ogunlana, “Quantify-
ing schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief
networks,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 27,
no. 1, pp. 39–50, 2009.
[12] A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, “Measuring the
efficiency of decision making units,” European Journal of Oper-
ational Research, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 429–444, 1978.
[13] N.-N. Li, C.-H. Wang, H. Ni, and H. Wang, “Efficiency and
Productivity of County-level Public Hospitals Based on the
Data Envelopment Analysis Model and Malmquist Index in
Anhui, China,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 130, no. 23, pp.
2836–2843, 2017.
[14] K. A. Johannessen, S. A. C. Kittelsen, and T. P. Hagen, “Assessing
physician productivity following Norwegian hospital reform:
A panel and data envelopment analysis,” Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 175, pp. 117–126, 2017.
[15] N. Li, Y. Jiang, H. Mu, and Z. Yu, “Efficiency evaluation and
improvement potential for the Chinese agricultural sector at
the provincial level based on data envelopment analysis (DEA),”
Energy, vol. 164, pp. 1145–1160, 2018.
[16] X. H. Zhu, Y. Chen, and C. Feng, “Green total factor produc-
tivity of China’s mining and quarrying industry: A global data
envelopment analysis,” Resources Policy, vol. 57, pp. 1–9, 2018.
[17] A. W. Mugera, M. R. Langemeier, and A. M. Featherstone,
“Labor productivity convergence in the Kansas farm sector:
A three-stage procedure using data envelopment analysis and
semiparametric regression analysis,” Journal of Productivity
Analysis, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 63–79, 2012.
[18] A. S. H. Yousif and B. G. Dale, “The influence of inflation on
productivity calculations: A case study,” Engineering Costs and
Production Economics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 1990.
[19] F. A. Sowunmi, J. N. Hogarh, P. O. Agbola, and C. Atewamba,
“Sand dredging and environmental efficiency of artisanal fish-
ermen in Lagos state, Nigeria,” Environmental Modeling &
Assessment, vol. 188, no. 3, article no. 179, pp. 1–19, 2016.
[20] I. Widiarto, A. Emrouznejad, and L. Anastasakis, “Observing
choice of loan methods in not-for-profit microfinance using
data envelopment analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications,
vol. 82, pp. 278–290, 2017.
[21] Y. Fan, B. Bai, Q. Qiao, P. Kang, Y. Zhang, and J. Guo, “Study
on eco-efficiency of industrial parks in China based on data
envelopment analysis,” Journal of Environmental Management,
vol. 192, pp. 107–115, 2017.
[22] J. Benicio and J. C. Mello, “Productivity Analysis and Variable
Returns of Scale: DEA Efficiency Frontier Interpretation,” in
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information
Technology and Quantitative Management (ITQM), Rio De
Janeiro, Procedia Computer Science, vol. 55, pp. 341–349, 2015.
Advances in Advances in Journal of The Scientific Journal of
Operations Research
Hindawi
Decision Sciences
Hindawi
Applied Mathematics
Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Probability and Statistics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International
Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Sciences

Journal of

Hindawi
Optimization
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

International Journal of
Engineering International Journal of
Mathematics
Hindawi
Analysis
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of Advances in Mathematical Problems International Journal of Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Hindawi
Numerical Analysis
Hindawi
in Engineering
Hindawi
Differential Equations
Hindawi
Nature and Society
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of Journal of Journal of Abstract and Advances in

Stochastic Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematics
Hindawi
Function Spaces
Hindawi
Applied Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018