Algorithmic Method for Scraper Load-Time Optimization

Marina Marinelli 1 and Sergios Lambropoulos 2

Abstract: Scrapers have established an important position in the earthmoving field as they are independently capable of accomplishing an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Central Florida Libraries on 10/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

earthmoving operation. Given that loading a scraper to its capacity does not entail its maximum production, optimizing the scraper’s loading
time is an essential prerequisite for successful operations management. The relevant literature addresses the loading time optimization through
a graphical method that is founded on the invalid assumption that the hauling time is independent of the load time. To correct this, a new
algorithmic optimization method that incorporates the golden section search and the bisection algorithm is proposed. Comparison of the
results derived from the proposed and the existing method demonstrates that the latter entails the systematic needless prolongation of the
loading stage thus resulting in reduced hourly production and increased cost. Therefore, the proposed method achieves an improved modeling
of scraper earthmoving operations and contributes toward a more efficient cost management. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000624. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Construction management; Construction equipment; Earthmoving; Productivity; Optimization;
Algorithms.
Author keywords: Construction management; Construction equipment; Earthmoving; Productivity; Optimization; Algorithms.

Introduction
Earthmoving operations constitute an inextricable part of most con-
struction projects. Scrapers have established an important position
in the earthmoving field as they are independently capable of
excavating, loading, hauling, and placing materials under a wide
variety of conditions. Although neither as effective as hoes and
shovels in excavating nor as efficient as trucks in hauling and
placing, the fact that this one machine performs all these tasks
makes it the equipment of choice when moving large quantities
of soil (Eldin and Mayfield 2005).
The literature attributes increased significance to the stage of
loading. Gransberg (1996) and Schexnayder et al. (1999) consider
it determinant for the development of the whole earthmoving op-
eration. Kannan et al. (1999) note that the interrelationship between
payload and load time makes loading more complicated than the
other activities. In scraper earthmoving operations, the evolution
of the loading stage is precisely described by the load growth curve,
that is, the graphic representation of the increase in payload during
loading time. Independently of the specific equipment and material
characteristics, a scraper’s load growth curve is expected to
conform to the shape of Fig. 1. The changing slope represents
the rate at which the material enters the bowl. At the beginning,
the rate is high; however, as the loading time increases the rate
decreases. This is due to the fact that the additional material
1 (Fig. 2). Then, the tangent to the load growth curve from point
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Construction Engineering and Management,
School of Civil Engineering, National Technical Univ. of Athens, 9 Iroon
Polytechniou St., 157 73 Athens, Greece (corresponding author). E-mail:
marina01022@yahoo.gr
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical Univ. of Athens,
9 Iroon Polytechniou St., 157 73 Athens, Greece.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 27, 2010; approved
on June 11, 2012; published online on July 25, 2012. Discussion period
open until October 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engi-
neering and Management, Vol. 139, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN
0733-9364/2013/5-459-465/$25.00.
obtained has to physically lift or force its way through all of the
material already loaded. Hence, allowing a scraper to obtain the
maximum load implies neither maximum production nor minimum
cost (Carmichael 1987). Therefore, the optimal loading time needs
to be determined.
In the following sections, the existing method for determining
the optimal scraper load time is evaluated and a new one is pro-
posed. Moreover, the results of the two approaches are compared
in proof of the systematic error that the existing method entails.
Presentation and Evaluation of the Existing
Load-Time Optimization Method
In each scraper earthmoving operation, the scraper’s cycle time
(tc;sc ) consists of the load time (tl ), transport time (ttr ), spot and
dumping time (ts ), and return time (tr ) [Eq. (1)]:
tc;sc ¼ t1 þ ttr þ ts þ tr ð1Þ
The literature addresses the determination of the scraper’s opti-
mal load time through the respective load growth curve, according
to the graphical process that follows (Day and Benjamin 1991;
Singh 1993; Nunnally 2007). First, the scraper’s cycle time after
loading, that is, the sum of ttr , ts , and tr , is plotted (point A) on
the left horizontal semiaxis of the load growth curve graph
A is drawn and the point of tangency is specified (point B). The
optimal load time (point C) is finally indicated by the projection
of point B.
Evidently, the above approach lies on the assumption that ttr , ts ,
and tr are independent of the weight loaded and, as such, they can
be used to determine tl . This assumption could be considered rea-
sonable for tr, given that during the return, the scraper is empty.
Likewise, ts is not expected to be substantially affected by the load.
However, this is certainly not the case for ttr, because according to
Eq. (2) the maximum speed of the vehicle during hauling U max
(km=h) depends on the weight of the load transported, Btr :

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 459

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:459-465.


Fig. 1. Typical shape of a scraper load growth curve
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Central Florida Libraries on 10/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Graphical determination of the scraper’s optimal load time
N e × me
U max ¼ 3600 × ð2Þ
ðBo þ Btr Þ × ðwr þ ws Þ
This is also the case for the mean speed U mean [Eq. (3)], given
that the derivation of the relevant speed coefficient cs (Fig. 3)
depends on the value of the ratio N e =ðBo þ Btr Þ (Kuhn 1974):
U mean ¼ U max × cs ð3Þ
A numerical example may clarify the above. Assuming the
data of Table 1, if the load corresponds to the 90% of the scraper’s
max payload, that is, Btr ¼ 0.9 × 372.85 ¼ 335.56 kN, the
maximum travel speed calculated using Eq. (2) is equal to
U max;90 ¼ 23.9 km=h. Instead, if the load corresponds to the
70% of the scraper’s capacity, that is, Btr ¼ 261.00 kN, the respec-
tive speed is U max;70 ¼ 26.3 km=h. Apparently, the maximum
speed has been increased by approximately 10%. Furthermore,
the speed coefficients emerging from Fig. 3 are also different, that
is, cs;90 ¼ 0.54 and cs;70 ¼ 0.59. As a result, according to Eq. (3),
the respective mean speed for the first case is U mean;90 ¼
12.9 km=h, while for the second it is U mean;70 ¼ 15.5 km=h, which
is an increase of 20%.
Given the dependence between mean speed and respective time,
the above differentiations disprove the fundamental consideration
of the existing graphical method that there is no dependence
between loading and transport time. Therefore, a new method
detecting the optimal scraper loading time is required.
Fig. 3. Nomograph for speed coefficient determination (N e in PS; Bo ,
Btr in t)
460 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:459-465.
Table 1. Example Data
Parameter Value
N e (kW) 335
Bo (kN) 464.75
Bmax (kN) 372.85
L (m) 450
wr (N=kN) 50
ws (N=kN) 10
me 0.95
New Algorithmic Method for Scraper Load-Time
Optimization
This section addresses the determination of the scraper’s optimal
load time through an algorithmic process that takes into account
the actual effect of the weight hauled on the scraper’s cycle time
and hourly production.
Loading Optimization for a Single Scraper
The objective is to detect, for given operation conditions, the load-
ing time for which the scraper’s hourly production is maximized.
This requires generation of the scraper’s production function
Qsc ðt1 Þ by means of the respective load growth curve. For this pur-
pose, several load cases (i.e., pairs of loading time and respective
load) are obtained by the load growth curve and the respective
hourly production Qsc is derived for the specific operation accord-
ing to Eq. (4). Evidently, the calculation of tc;sc from Eq. (1) re-
quires the employment of Eqs. (2) and (3) to yield the transport
and return mean speed that determine ttr and tr . The plotting of
the load time and the corresponding hourly production values visu-
alize Qsc ðtl Þ. Its typical shape is presented in Fig. 4. Evidently,
Qsc ðtl Þ is a continuous and unimodal curve with a unique ex-
tremum, which corresponds to the optimum load time tsc;opt :
V tr × nexp
Qsc ¼ ð4Þ
tc;sc
The detection of tsc;opt constitutes a one-dimensional optimiza-
tion problem, which could be addressed by the algorithmic process
of the golden section search (GSS). The GSS brackets the maxi-
mum of the unimodal function Qsc ðtl Þ by successively narrowing
the range of the interval where it is being sought. Assuming that the
loading time ranges between t1 and t4 , each iteration of the GSS
employs the golden section equation [Eq. (5)] to yield the inter-
mediate values t2 and t3 . Fig. 5 illustrates the geometrical relation-
ship that the golden section entails for the line segments defined by
t1 , t2 , t 3 , t4 :
Fig. 4. Scraper load time–hourly production typical curve
 maximum value is expected to occur in the subinterval [t1 , t3 ]; thus,
the boundary value t4 is rejected and replaced by t3, and the next
iteration of the search is applied in the new subinterval [t1 , t3 ].
Likewise, if Qsc ðt3 Þ > Qsc ðt2 Þ, then the maximum is expected
to occur in the subinterval [t2 , t4 ]; thus, the boundary value t1
is rejected and replaced by t2, and the next iteration concerns
the new subinterval [t2 , t4 ]. Therefore, based on the evaluation
Fig. 5. Golden section geometry of the function Qsc ðtl Þ at t2 and t3 , each iteration leads to the
one of the two boundary values t1 or t4 being rejected, as well
as to a new intermediate value t3 or t2 being created. Overall,
the new interval [t10 , t40 ] emerging at the end of the iteration is re-
duced by the factor b of Eq. (5), compared to the original interval
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Central Florida Libraries on 10/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[t1 , t4 ]. An illustration of the process is presented in Fig. 6.

It is noted that the precise determination of the material volume
corresponding to the new load time arising requires the prior em-
ployment of the least squares methodology to determine the
polynomial that best fits the observations constituting the load
growth curve.
After successive iterations of the GSS, the final determination of
the maximum hourly production is achieved and thus the optimal
loading time tsc;opt;GSS is detected. Given that the load time for full
capacity does not usually exceed 1.5 min, 10 iterations suffice for
the detection of a reasonably small time range (e.g., 0.02 min)
Fig. 6. Golden section search where the optimal load time lies.
The algorithmic procedure achieving the loading time optimi-
zation for a single scraper is presented in the flow chart of Fig. 7.
2
t3 − t1 ¼ t4 − t2 ¼ b × ðt4 − t1 Þ where b ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ 0.618
1þ 5
Loading Optimization for a Fleet of Scrapers and a
ð5Þ
Pusher
Given that Qsc ðtl Þ is unimodal and t1 < t2 < t3 < t4 , the scrap- The previous section addressed the load-time optimization for a
er’s maximum production Qsc;max lies either to the subinterval single scraper. However, the external assistance of a pusher is often
[t1 , t3 ] or to the [t2 , t4 ] one. Therefore, following the comparison necessary. The involvement of a pusher requires the GSS optimi-
of Qsc ðt2 Þ and Qsc ðt3 Þ the search could be limited to one of the zation process to yield not only the scraper’s load time tsc;opt;GSS but
above subintervals. To be specific, if Qsc ðt2 Þ > Qsc ðt3 Þ, then the also the pusher’s load time tpush;opt;GSS . For this additional purpose,

Fig. 7. Optimal load-time determination by means of the GSS (single scraper)

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 461

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:459-465.

 the pusher’s hourly production function Qpush ðtl Þ is required, as
deriving from Eqs. (6) (Peurifoy et al. 2006) and (7):
tc;push ¼ 0.25 þ 1.4 × t1 ð6Þ

V tr × nexp
Qpush ¼ ð7Þ
tc;push

Its typical shape is presented in Fig. 8. Thereafter, and because

Fig. 8. Pusher load time–hourly production typical curve Qpush ðtl Þ is also unimodal, the GSS is applied to detect the maxi-
mum production of the pusher Qpush;max ¼ Qpush ðtpush;opt;GSS Þ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Central Florida Libraries on 10/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

However, the pusher is usually combined with more than one

scraper in order to avoid significant idleness. The scrapers maxi-
mum number is reansonably restricted to the minimum number
required to render the pusher critical, because no economic advan-
tage is gained by having more scrapers. In any case, assuming a
fleet of one pusher and n scrapers, the hourly production of the
fleet is equal to the minimum between the pusher’s production
and the scraper(s) production (Fig. 9).
Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the pusher’s
maximum production Qpush;max ¼ Qpush ðtpush;opt;GSS Þ is smaller
than the respective production of the n scrapers Qsc;n ¼
n × Qsc ðtpush;opt;GSS Þ, as well as whether the scrapers’ maximum
Fig. 9. Example of pusher and scraper(s) hourly production curves
production Qsc;n;max ¼ n × Qsc ðtsc;opt;GSS Þ is smaller than the

Fig. 10. Optimal load-time determination by means of the GSS (pusher-scrapers fleet)

462 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:459-465.

 respective production of the pusher Qpush ðtsc;opt;GSS Þ. If the first
event occurs, the optimal load time for the fleet is tfl;opt ¼
tpush;opt;GSS ; if the second one occurs, the optimal load time is
tfl;opt ¼ tsc;opt;GSS . In a theoretical case that both of these events
occur, the optimal time is the one corresponding to the greater
between Qpush;max and Qsc;n;max . The sequence of comparisons
required to yield the optimal loading time for a pusher–scrapers
fleet tfl;opt is presented in the flow chart of Fig. 10.
However, there is still the possibility that none of these events
occur, in case that both tsc;opt;GSS and tpush;opt;GSS are outside the
load-time range where the corresponding unit is critical. In such
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Central Florida Libraries on 10/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a case, the goal shifts to the elimination of the fleet’s idle time
and thus the optimization process aims at determining the load time
that concurrently renders the scrapers and the pusher critical.
Evidently, this corresponds to the point of intersection of the scrap-
ers’ and the pusher’s production curves. Therefore, the optimization
process aims at detecting the root of the function Fðtl Þ ¼
jQsc;n ðtl Þ − Qpush ðtl Þj. For the attainment of this goal, the well-
known bisection algorithm is applied at [t1 , t4 ], given that Fðtl Þ
is continuous and has a root within this interval. The bisection al-
gorithm (Fig. 11) divides the initial interval into two halves [t1 , t
]
and [t
, t4 ], where t
¼ ðt1 þ t4 Þ=2, and checks the sign of the
product Fðt1 Þ × Fðt
Þ. If Fðt1 Þ × Fðt
Þ < 0, then the root lies in
[t1 , t
]; otherwise, it lies in [t
, t4 ]. The half-interval that contains
the root is preserved and bisected again in the next iteration. After
several repetitions in which the interval becomes smaller and
smaller, its boundaries converge to the root, which is the optimal
loading time of the fleet tfl;opt .
Fig. 11. Optimal load-time determination by means of the bisection
algorithm (pusher-scrapers fleet)
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 463
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:459-465.
Results and Discussions
The proposed method’s possibilities and gains can be assessed by
implementing both the proposed and the existing method under the
same conditions, as this allows to compare the loading time and the
respective hourly production that they entail. Addressing this com-
parison on-site would probably lead to misleading conclusions,
given that the observations are prone to the impact of randomly
occurring/varying factors, such as the competence and the actions
of the operator, the soil composition, and the obstacles on the route.
All these affect the practical verification of both the proposed and
the existing optimization method; deviations between planning and
execution are inherent in earthmoving operations. The comparative
evaluation of the two approaches can soundly be addressed through
the numerical investigation of scraper operations with typical
characteristics. As such were considered the hauling distances
(L) from 100 to 1,000 m and the grades at hauling direction be-
tween 0% and 6% (ws ¼ 0–60 N=KN). Furthermore, the load
growth curve of Fig. 1, the scraper of Table 2, and the operation
conditions of Table 3 were assumed.
Given its extent, the computational process had to be automated.
Therefore, the graphical determination of the point of tangency
(point B, Fig. 2), which anyway involves an inadequate level of
accuracy, had to be substituted by an analytical one. The algorith-
mic process of the GSS was selected to address this objective too,
given that the point of tangency corresponds to the maximum angle
formed by the horizontal axis and the line segment commencing
from point A.
Indicative results of the numerical investigation are presented in
Tables 4–7. Comparing the values of tsc;opt;exist and tsc;opt;GSS , that
is, the load time that the existing and the proposed method yield as
optimal, it is evident that the existing method consistently overes-
timates the loading time. The overestimation roughly ranges
between 10% and 40%, depending on hauling distance and grade.
Fig. 12 indicatively compares the results of the two approaches for
hauling routes of grade 3%. There is no doubt that the significant
unnecessary prolongation of the loading stage entails additional
cost resulting from the increased fuel consumption and wear of
the machine’s tires, ground engaging parts, and power train com-
ponents. Furthermore, the maximum hourly production that can be
achieved by means of the existing method Qsc;max;exist is lower
by 0.2–1.5% than the respective hourly production under the
GSS method, Qsc;max;GSS .
Table 2. Numerical Investigation Assumptions
Parameter Value
N e (kW) 335
Bo (kN) 464.75
Bmax (kN) 372.85
V sc ðm3 Þ 26
Ulim (km=h) 53
Note: Data in the table are from 631G scraper characteristics (Caterpillar
2010).
Table 3. Numerical Investigation Assumptions of Operation Conditions
Parameter Value
wr (N=kN) 50
g (t=m3 ) 1.4
ts (min) 0.9
me 0.95
nexp 0.83
 Table 4. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Method Results for
Grade 0%
tsc;opt;exist tsc;opt;GSS Qsc;max;exist Qsc;max;GSS
L (m) (min) (min) (m3 =h) (m3 =h)
100 0.67 0.59 510.70 512.84
200 0.74 0.64 415.82 418.16
300 0.79 0.68 356.93 358.73
400 0.85 0.72 315.68 317.43
500 0.91 0.76 282.88 284.39
600 0.98 0.81 257.13 258.42
700 1.05 0.83 236.40 238.04
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Central Florida Libraries on 10/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

800 1.12 0.87 215.27 216.75

900 1.16 0.91 197.95 199.06
1,000 1.19 0.96 183.34 184.14
Fig. 12. Optimal load time according to the existing and the proposed
method for grade 3%

Table 5. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Method Results for

Grade 2% Following the comparative evaluation of the two approaches it is
clear that the proposed method not only achieves an improved
tsc;opt;exist tsc;opt;GSS Qsc;max;exist Qsc;max;GSS
modeling of scraper earthmoving operations but also enhances
L (m) (min) (min) (m3 =h) (m3 =h)
the cost control effectiveness by averting the reduction of the
100 0.71 0.60 461.20 464.41 hourly production as well as the increased cost that the extended
200 0.79 0.65 366.77 369.92 loading duration entails.
300 0.86 0.70 310.78 313.19 Given that the proposed method lends itself quite well to a
400 0.93 0.74 272.59 274.96
computer-aided spreadsheet application, future work could include
500 1.03 0.79 242.56 244.78
600 1.11 0.85 219.98 221.60 addressing the more complex algorithmic procedure of pusher-
700 1.16 0.87 202.02 203.60 scrapers fleet through a user-friendly tool which would examine
800 1.19 0.92 183.34 184.43 for given operation conditions the cost implications of all the pos-
900 1.22 0.98 167.94 168.66 sible scraper fleet sizes, thus enabling the simultaneous optimiza-
1,000 1.23 1.04 154.98 155.46 tion of the loading time and the number of scrapers.

Conclusions
Table 6. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Method Results for
Detecting the optimal load time in scraper earthmoving operations
Grade 4%
is of critical importance, given that filling the scraper bowl to maxi-
tsc;opt;exist tsc;opt;GSS Qsc;max;exist Qsc;max;GSS mum capacity implies neither maximum production nor minimum
L (m) (min) (min) (m3 =h) (m3 =h) cost. The existing literature addresses the optimization of the scrap-
100 0.74 0.61 418.59 422.18 er’s load time through a graphical method, founded on the consid-
200 0.84 0.66 325.86 329.43 eration that the hauling time is independent of the load time. This
300 0.93 0.73 272.92 275.80 research proves the invalidity of the aforementioned consideration
400 1.05 0.77 237.44 240.48 and presents a new approach for establishing the optimal load time
500 1.14 0.83 210.70 212.95 by means of the GSS and the bisection algorithm. The comparative
600 1.18 0.91 190.96 192.18 implementation of the proposed and existing method demonstrates
700 1.21 0.93 175.06 176.11
that, depending on the route characteristics, the latter entails the
800 1.23 1.00 158.25 158.90
900 1.25 1.07 144.42 144.86 systematic overestimation of the loading time, thus resulting in re-
1,000 1.26 1.13 132.87 133.17 duced hourly production and additional cost implications. There-
fore, the contribution of this research lies in the improvement of
both the modeling and the cost management of scraper earthmoving
operations. Future work on this issue could include the integration
of the proposed time-optimization procedure into a computer-aided
Table 7. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Method Results for
Grade 6%
spreadsheet application, additionally enabling the user to detect the
optimal scrapers fleet size for given operation conditions.
tsc;opt;exist tsc;opt;GSS Qsc;max;exist Qsc;max;GSS
L (m) (min) (min) (m3 =h) (m3 =h)
100 0.77 0.62 383.05 387.04 Notation
200 0.89 0.67 293.13 296.99
300 1.03 0.75 242.98 246.46 The following symbols are used in this paper:
400 1.14 0.79 210.80 213.76 Bmax = scraper max payload;
500 1.19 0.87 186.82 188.54 Bo = scraper tare weight;
600 1.22 0.97 169.02 169.79 Btr = weight of the transported load; p
700 1.24 1.01 154.59 155.28 b = golden section factor = 2=ð1 þ 5Þ ¼ 0.618;
800 1.26 1.08 139.28 139.70 cs = speed coefficient;
900 1.27 1.13 126.76 127.04 Fðtl Þ = difference between scraper and pusher hourly
1,000 1.28 1.16 116.33 116.52
production as a function of the load time;

464 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:459-465.

 g = material specific weight; U mean = scraper mean transport speed;
L = hauling distance; V sc = scraper volumetric capacity;
me = scraper mechanical efficiency factor; V tr = volume of the transported material;
Ne = scraper flywheel power; wr = rolling resistance coefficient; and
n = number of scrapers; ws = grade resistance coefficient.
nexp = scraper/pusher exploitation coefficient;
Qpush = pusher hourly production;
Qpush ðtl Þ = pusher hourly production as a function of the load
time; References
Qsc = scraper hourly production;
Carmichael, D. (1987). “Optimal pusher–scraper loading policies.” Eng.
Qsc;n = hourly production of n scrapers;
Optim., (Bellingham, WA, U.S.) 12(4), 255–267.
Qsc ðtl Þ =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Central Florida Libraries on 10/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

scraper hourly production as a function of the load Caterpillar. (2010). Caterpillar performance handbook, 40th Ed.,
time; Caterpillar, Peoria, IL.
Qsc;max;exist = scraper hourly production corresponding to the Day, D. A., and Benjamin, N. (1991). “Scrapers for earthmoving.”
optimal load time that the existing method Construction equipment guide, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
yields; Eldin, N., and Mayfield, J. (2005). “Determination of most economical
Qsc;max;GSS = scraper hourly production corresponding to the scrapers fleet.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(10), 1109–1114.
optimal load time that the GSS yields; Gransberg, D. D. (1996). “Optimizing haul unit size and number based
t1 = lower bound of the load-time range; on loading facility characteristics.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 122(3),
t2 = intermediate time value determined by the GSS; 248–253.
Kannan, G., Vorster, M. C., and Martinez, J. C. (1999). “Developing the
t3 = intermediate time value determined by the GSS;
statistical parameters for simultaneous variation in final payload and
t4 = upper bound of the load-time range; total load time.” Winter Simulation Conf. Proc., P. A. Farrington, H. B.
tc;push = pusher cycle time; Nembhard, D. Sturrock, and G. W. Evans, eds., Association for
tc;sc = scraper cycle time; Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, 1016–1022.
tfl;opt = load time determined by the GSS/the bisection Kuhn, G. (1974). “Bagger-Lkw-Betrieb.” Die mechanik des baubetriebes,
algorithm as optimal for the pusher-scrapers fleet; teil 1: Transport mechanik, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden, Berlin.
tl = scraper load time; Nunnally, S. W. (2007). “Loading and hauling.” Construction methods
tpush;opt;GSS = pusher optimal load time according to the GSS; and management, 7th Ed., Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle
tr = scraper return time; River, NJ.
ts = scraper spot and dumping time; Peurifoy, R. L., Schexnayder, C. J., and Shapira, A. (2006). “Scrapers.”
Construction planning, equipment and methods, 7th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
tsc;opt;exist = scraper optimal load time according to the existing
New York.
method; Schexnayder, C., Weber, S. L., and Brooks, B. T. (1999). “Effect of
tsc;opt;GSS = scraper optimal load time according to the GSS; truck payload weight on production.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
ttr = scraper transport time; 125(1), 1–7.
U lim = scraper speed limit; Singh, J. (1993). “Earthmoving machines.” Heavy construction planning,
U max = scraper maximum transport speed; equipment and methods, A/A Balkema, Rotterdam, Amsterdam.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 465

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:459-465.