Frontiers of Engineering Management

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 384–394 | Cite as

Proposing a “lean and green” framework for equipment cost analysis in construction

  • Ming LuEmail author
  • Nicolas Diaz
  • Monjurul Hasan
Research Article


One limitation of previous productivity-driven research on equipment selection and operation simulation lies in the fact that the green aspects of construction activities have been largely neglected in analysis of cost-efficiency of construction operations. On the other hand, studies attempting to measure greenhouse gas emission due to construction activities have yet to develop a methodology that correlates their findings and implications with construction productivity. In order to address the immediate need for improving the sustainability performance of construction projects, it is imperative for the construction industry to evaluate greenhouse gas emission as a cost factor in construction planning, equipment selection, and cost estimating. In this context, this paper formalizes an integrative framework for equipment cost analysis based on the concepts of lean construction and green construction, aimed to guide the selection of appropriate construction equipment considering exhaust emission and productivity performance at the same time. The framework is elaborated in earthwork construction in order to evaluate the impact of greenhouse gas emission in estimating equipment hourly rates and assessing greenness and sustainability for alternative equipment options.


green construction lean construction equipment simulation earthwork construction sustainability productivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AbouRizk S, Hajjar D (1998). A framework for applying simulation in the construction industry. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25 (3): 604–617Google Scholar
  2. Ahn C, Peña-Mora F, Lee S, Arboleda C A (2013). Consideration of the environmental cost in construction contracting for public works: A + C and A + B + C bidding methods. Journal of Management Engineering, 29(1): 86–94Google Scholar
  3. Al-Sudairi A A (2007). Evaluating the effect of construction process characteristics to the applicability Dd of lean principles. Construction Innovation: Information, Process. Management, 7(1): 99–121Google Scholar
  4. Al-Sudairi A, Diekmann J E, Songer A D, Brown H M (1999) Simulation of construction processes: Traditional practices versus lean principles. In: Proceedings of 7th Annual Conference of International Group of Lean Construction, 39–50Google Scholar
  5. Aziz R F, Hafez S M (2013). Applying lean thinking in construction and performance improvement. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 52(4): 679–695Google Scholar
  6. Ballard G, Howell G (1994). Implementing lean construction: Stabilizing work flow. In: Proceedings of 2nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile, 101–110Google Scholar
  7. Barati K, Shen X (2016). Operational level emissions modelling of on-road construction equipment through field data analysis. Automation in Construction, 72: 338–346Google Scholar
  8. Carmichael D G, Shen X, Peansupap V (2019). The relationship between heavy equipment cost efficiency and cleaner production in construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211: 521–529Google Scholar
  9. Caterpillar (2017). Caterpillar Performance Handbook. Version No. 47. Peoria, IL: CaterpillarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng T, Feng C, Chen Y (2005). A hybrid mechanism for optimizing construction simulation models. Automation in Construction, 14(1): 85–98Google Scholar
  11. Conte A S I (2002). Lean construction: From theory to practice. In: Proceedings of 10th Annual Conference of International Group for Lean Construction, Gramado, Brazil, 1–9Google Scholar
  12. Dunlop P, Smith S D (2004). Planning, estimation and productivity in the lean concrete pour. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 11(1): 55–64Google Scholar
  13. Farrar J M, AbouRizk S M, Mao X (2004). Generic implementation of lean concepts in simulation models. Lean Construction Journal, 1(1): 1–23Google Scholar
  14. Fernandez-Solis J L, Porwal V, Lavy S, Shafaat A, Rybkowski Z K, Son K, Lagoo N (2013). Survey of motivations, benefits, and implementation challenges of last planner system users. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(4): 354–360Google Scholar
  15. Golzarpoor H, Gonzalez V (2013). A green-lean simulation model for assessing environmental and production waste in construction. In: Proceedings of 21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 885–894Google Scholar
  16. Golzarpoor H, González V, Shahbazpour M, O’Sullivan M (2017). An input-output simulation model for assessing production and environmental waste in construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143: 1094–1104Google Scholar
  17. González V, Echaveguren T (2012). Exploring the environmental modeling of road construction operations using discrete-event simulation. Automation in Construction, 24: 100–110Google Scholar
  18. Gransberg D D, O’Connor E P (2015). Major equipment life-cycle cost analysis. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & LibraryGoogle Scholar
  19. Green S D (1999). The missing arguments of lean construction. Construction Management and Economics, 17(2): 133–137Google Scholar
  20. Hasan M, Lu M (2017). Error quantification and visualization in using sensors to position backhoe excavator. In: ASCE International Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering, Seattle, Washington, USA, 150–157Google Scholar
  21. Heidari B, Marr L C (2015). Real-time emissions from construction equipment compared with model predictions. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65(2): 115–125Google Scholar
  22. Howell G, Ballard G (1998). Implementing lean construction: Understanding and action. In: Proceedings of 6th Annual Conference of International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  23. Hummer J E, Arocho I, Rasdori W (2017). Approach to assessing tradeoffs between construction equipment fleet emissions and cost. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(5): 1–10Google Scholar
  24. Kim J, Koo C, Kim C J, Hong T, Park H S (2015). Integrated CO2, cost, and schedule management system for building construction projects using the earned value management theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103: 275–285Google Scholar
  25. Ko C H, Chung N F (2014). Lean design process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(6): 04014011Google Scholar
  26. Koskela L, Howell G, Ballard G, Tommelein I (2002). Foundations of lean construction. In: Best R, de Valence G, eds. Design and Construction: Building in Value. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  27. Koskela L (1992). Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction. Technical Report No. 72. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Law A M (2015). Simulation Modeling and Analysis. Boston: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis P, Rasdorf W (2017). Fuel use and pollutant emissions taxonomy for heavy duty diesel construction equipment. Journal of Management Engineering, 33(2): 04016038Google Scholar
  30. Li W, Wang X G (2016). Innovations on management of sustainable construction in a large earthwork project: An Australian case research. Procedia Engineering, 145: 677–684Google Scholar
  31. Lu M (2003). Simplified discrete-event simulation approach for construction simulation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5): 537–546Google Scholar
  32. Lu M, Hasan M (2018). Productivity improvement in operating autonomous plants subject to random breakdowns in construction. In: Proceedings of 2018 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), IEEE, Gothenburg, Sweden, 3885–3896Google Scholar
  33. Lu M, Wong L C (2005). Comparing PROMODEL and SDESA in modeling construction operations. In: Proceedings of the 37th Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 1524–1532Google Scholar
  34. Lu M, Lam H C, Dai F (2008). Resource-constrained critical path analysis based on discrete event simulation and particle swarm optimization. Automation in Construction, 17(6): 670–681Google Scholar
  35. Mao X, Zhang X (2008). Construction process reengineering by integrating lean principles and computer simulation techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(5): 371–381Google Scholar
  36. Marzouk M, Moselhi O (2003). Object-oriented simulation model for earthmoving operations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(2): 173–181Google Scholar
  37. Miller C J M, Packham G A, Thomas B C (2002). Harmonization between main contractors and subcontractors: A prerequisite for lean construction? Journal of Construction Research, 03(01): 67–82Google Scholar
  38. Morley D, Lu M, Joseph T (2013). In search of the ideal truck-excavator combination. In: Proceedings of 30th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  39. Moselhi O, Alshibani A (2009). Optimization of earthmoving operations in heavy civil engineering projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10): 948–954Google Scholar
  40. Peurifoy R L, Oberlender G D (2013). Estimating Construction Costs (6th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher EducationGoogle Scholar
  41. Rasdorf W, Frey C, Lewis P, Kim K, Pang S H, Abolhassani S (2010). Field procedures for real-world measurements of emissions from diesel construction vehicles. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(3): 216–225Google Scholar
  42. Rosenbaum S, Toledo M, Gonzalez V (2012). Green-lean approach for assessing environmental and production waste in construction. In: Proceedings of 20th Annual Conference of International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Sacks R, Radosavljevic M, Barak R (2010). Requirements for building information modeling based lean production management systems for construction. Automation in Construction, 19(5): 641–655Google Scholar
  44. Salem O, Solomon J, Genaidy A, Minkarah I (2006). Lean construction: From theory to implementation. Journal of Management Engineering, 22(4): 168–175Google Scholar
  45. Shang G, Sui P L (2014). Lean Construction Management: The Toyota Way. Singapore: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  46. Shi J J (1999). A neural network based system for predicting earthmoving production. Construction Management and Economics, 17(4): 463–471Google Scholar
  47. Thomas H R, Horman M J, de Souza U E L, Zavřski I (2002). Reducing variability to improve performance as a lean construction principle. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(2): 144–154Google Scholar
  48. Tommelein D I (1998). Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: Simulation of lean construction technique. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(4): 279–288Google Scholar
  49. Tommelein I D, Li A E Y (1999). Just-in-time concrete delivery: Mapping alternatives for vertical supply chain integration. In: Proceedings of 7th Annual Conference of International Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, California, USA, 97–108Google Scholar
  50. Uriarte A G, Ng A H C, Moris M U, Oscarson J (2015). Lean, simulation and optimization: A win-win combination. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 2227–2238Google Scholar
  51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009). Potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the construction sector. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  52. Vision (2017). Winter-wise solution to cold weather construction challenges. Visions, Publication of Graham ConstructionGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang T, Wang J, Wu P, Wang J, He Q, Wang X (2017). Estimating the environmental costs and benefits of demolition waste using life cycle assessment and willingness-to-pay: A case study in Shenzhen. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 14–26Google Scholar
  54. World Commission on Environment, and Development (1986). Our Common Future, a Report of World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Yates J K (2014). Design and construction for sustainable industrial construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(4): B4014005Google Scholar
  56. Yi C, Lu M (2018). A Simulation-based Earthmoving Fleet Optimization Platform (SEFOP) for truck/excavator selection in rough grading project. In: Proceedings of 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018), Berlin, Germany, 956–962Google Scholar
  57. Yoon J, Kim J, Suh S, Suh S (2014). Spatial factors affecting the loading efficiency of excavators. Automation in Construction, 48: 97–106Google Scholar
  58. Zhang H, Tam C M, Li H, Shi J J (2006). Particle swarm optimization-supported simulation for construction operations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(12): 1267–1274Google Scholar
  59. Zhang M, Cao T, Zhao X (2017). Applying sensor-based technology to improve construction safety management. Sensors (Switzerland), 17 (8): 1841Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations