Estimating capital and operational costs of backhoe shovels.
Sayadi, Ahmad Reza ; Lashgari, Ali ; Fouladgar, Mohammad Majid 等
1. Introduction
Earthmoving operations are an important part of construction and
mining projects, and mainly include excavation, loading, site
preparation, embankment construction, compacting, backfilling, surfacing
and hauling. These operations are equipment-intensive, characterized by
the development of large fleets (Hassanien, Moselhi 2002). Earthmoving
is therefore often one of the most important operations in many mining
and construction projects in terms of its effect on costs and
productivity (Gransberg et al. 2006; Tatari, Skibniewski 2006; Park et
al. 2010).
The owning and operation of these equipment fleets represent a
considerable part of the early costs for large contractors involved in
heavy construction engineering and mining projects (Skibniewski, Armijos
1990; Fan et al. 2008). Moreover, machine owners seek to minimize the
cost of operation by optimum selection of the equipment (Zavadskas,
Vilutiene 2006). Consequently, it is a main concern of equipment
managers to limit and reduce the overall cost of this task. Their
responsibilities include selecting and optimizing the equipment fleet,
as well as reducing the cost and optimizing productivity.
In equipment planning for an earthmoving operation, a decision
should be made on what machines to employ in the operation. Most
assessment utilise an average operting cost over the life of the
equipment (Noakes, Lanz 1993). In making such a decision, many
interactions between engineering and economic considerations must be
taken into account. The process of selecting appropriate machines,
however, can generally follow a decisionmaking path with the individual
steps of selection of the type and model of the machine, determination
of the number of machines and choice of the most appropriate machine.
The decision-maker should consider all the alternatives, as well as
the project specification and economic issues, in order to choose the
most appropriate loading equipment fleet. This decision has a
significant impact on the results of the feasibility study. Therefore,
managers need to have an accurate and simple cost estimation tool to
select the most suitable equipment fleet, which will meet production
targets and minimize overall cost (Twort, Rees 2004).
The selection and evaluation of material handling equipment is a
complex procedure that requires working knowledge and experience of the
techniques of cost estimation as well as knowledge of equipment
management, because the work of providing cost evaluations needs the
manager to be familiar with equipment management to present precise cost
estimations.
In the first stages of mining and construction project evaluation,
no adequate estimation of expenses is possible, because access to an
expert who is knowledgeable in both equipment management and cost
estimation is not simple, adequate data is not available, and many
different alternatives need to be considered. Moreover, this evaluation
is time consuming and costly. Accordingly, an accurate and rapid
estimation tool is beneficial for equipment managers.
A variety of equipment can be used in material handling operations.
Based on its operational function, earthmoving equipment can be
classified as loading (excavating) and hauling machines and some types
of machines can function as both (Nichols, Day 1999). Cable shovels,
hydraulic shovels, wheel loaders and backhoe shovels are the most common
equipment used in loading operations.
The level of detail required in any assessment can be dependent on
many factors, such as management guidelines, data source and evaluation
time and budget (Noakes, Lanz 1993). It is important that the desired or
necessary level of details as well as data source are clarified, prior
to proceeding with cost estimation.
Backhoe shovels are very popular for digging, loading and
flattening operations. In this paper, two different cost models for
backhoe shovels are presented, based on uni-variable exponential (UVER)
and multi-variable linear regression (MVLR). The UVER cost model is
useful for quick cost estimation at the early stages of a project. This
model is particularly suited for making quick cost estimates where only
one specific design parameter is available. While the MVLR, based on
principal component analysis (PCA), is suitable for detailed estimates
at the feasibility study stage.
In order to demonstrate the capabilities of proposed cost
estimation models, a case example of a real world project was performed
using a particular project's conditions. The estimated costs are
compared with those of the actual project records.
2. Literature review
A number of models have been established in attempts to shortcut
the construction and mining cost estimating process (Table 1). These
relate the cost to certain factors in a process or a unit. In these
models, machine capacity usually has been used as independent variables
in univariate functions (Mular, Poulin 1998; Camm 1994; O'Hara,
Suboleski 1992). For instance, the cost of an excavator may be related
to its bucket capacity. The relationship may be expressed in a formula
or a graph. Some of these models are old, and therefore subject to
modern review. Moreover, as the capital or operating cost models are
univariable, the roles of the other effective parameters have simply
been disregarded. Multivariate cost estimation models, on the basis of
up-to-date data, will overcome these shortcomings.
3. Data and method
3.1. Data
32 different sizes of backhoe shovels, working in construction and
mining projects in the United States are considered and their economic
data as well as machine specifications are considered (InfoMine 2007,
2010). The economic data are classified into two types, as capital (CC)
and operating costs (OC). The CC is based on the US dollar (2010) while
the OC is based on US dollars per hour. The operating costs items
include overhaul (parts and labor), maintenance (parts and labor),
power, lubrication and wear on parts (the cost of the operator's
time is not included here) and the technical parameters are bucket size
(BS), digging depth (DD), dumping height (DH), weight (W) and power (HP)
(Noakes, Lanz 1993). The average and standard deviation of all the
parameters and data ranges are given in Table 2.
The statistical analysis is applied and the results confirm the
normal distribution of different variables, but a significant
correlation is observed between independent variables (Eq. (1)):
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (1)
One of the key assumptions of linear regression analysis is that
there is no multi-collinearity (mutual correlation) among the
independent variables of the regression model (Sharma 1996). In multiple
regression, one of the major diffculties with the usual least squares
estimators is the problem of multi-collinearity, which occurs when there
are near-constant linear functions of two or more of the predictor, or
regressor, variables (Gunst 1983). When highly correlated explanatory
parameters are used in a MVLR model, multi-collinearity causes unstable
prediction of regression coefficients, numerical inaccuracies in
calculating the estimates of regression coefficients, inaccurate
rejection of parameters and statistical imprecision (Jennrich 1995).
Consequently, the present correlation should be considered and
eliminated before applying the MVLR (Gujarati 2003).
3.2. Research framework
This paper presents two different cost models for backhoe shovels.
Figure 1 shows a normal material loading operation using a backhoe
shovel and dump truck.
These models help the cost estimators to make a quick and
up-to-date estimation of capital and operating costs with an acceptable
level of accuracy for the different stages of the feasibility study. The
first model estimates the costs based on the bucket size of the
backhoes, using the UVER technique.
The second model is useful for in-depth estimations, and estimates
the costs as functions of different specification parameters of backhoe
shovels, including the bucket size (BS), digging depth (DD), dump height
(DH), power (HP) and weight (W) of the machine. This model is presented
using MVLR, based on PCA.
The PCA technique can be used to eliminate the correlation between
independent variables. This is attained by transforming the original
variables into a new set of variables, called the Principal Components
(PCs). A PC is a weighted linear combination of all the original
variables, which is uncorrelated with the other PCs. PCs are ordered so
that the first few preserve most of the variation in all of the initial
parameters. The direction of highest variance of the independent
variables is represented by the first PC (PC1). The direction of the
second highest variance (PC2) would be orthogonal to PC1 and the
contribution of the PCs to the overall variation decreases from step to
step. PCs are orthogonal by definition, so any pair of PCs will have
zero correlation. The variance of the data in the corresponding PCs is
represented by the eigenvalues, and the eigenvector of each PC is equal
to the loading on it (Jolliffe 1986). PCs are used in conjunction with a
variety of other statistical techniques. One area in which this activity
has been extensive is regression analysis. In this hybrid method, the
values obtained by PCA are used as inputs in the MVLR.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The selection of a subset of PCs to use as independent variables of
MVLR depends on the nature of the data. The main objective in many
applications of PCA is to replace the elements of original variables by
a much smaller number of PCs, which nevertheless discard only a small
amount of the variation of the original variables and useful
information. In these cases the number of PCs selected to use as
independent variables in the MVLR is an important issue. But, in the
cases in which the major objective of using the PCA technique is to
solve the problem of multi-collinearity, all PCs can be contributed to
the MVLR model (Jolliffe 1986). Concerning the present study, all scores
obtained from the PCA technique are used as regressor variables in the
MVLR model. Performing the MVLR, the relationship between costs (as
dependent variables) and PCs (as independent variables) are established.
In order to estimate the cost as a function of the original
variables, the eigenvectors of the correlation matrix are multiplied in
MVLR coefficients (B coefficients). Since, when applying the PCA
technique, all the variables are standardized, it is necessary to
transform them to their initial positions with actual means and standard
deviations as follow:
[x.sup.*] = (x - m) / sd, (2)
where: [x.sup.*] is the standardized value of the original variable
(x) and m and sd represent the mean and standard deviation of x.
To assess the performance of the models, the Mean Absolute Error
Rates (MAER) of different functions are calculated as follows (Kim et
al. 2004):
MAER = [[summation] [absolute value of ([C.sub.e] - [C.sub.a]) /
[C.sub.a]].100] / n, (3)
where: Ce is the estimated backhoe shovel cost, Ca is the actual
backhoe shovel cost, and n is the number of data.
4. Results
4.1. Univariate exponential regression
Applying the UVER, two different sets of functions are developed
for estimation of the capital and operating costs of backhoe shovels as
functions of different machine specific parameters. The UVER functions
are in the form of Y = [a.sup.x][(parameter).sup.m], where Y is the
estimated cost. Whereas a and m are constants determined by the
regression analysis. Eqs (4) and (5) show UVER functions to calculate
capital and operating costs as functions of bucket size of backhoe
shovels and the relationships are expressed as graphs in Figs 2 and 3.
CC($) = 34076 x [BS.sup.0.932], [R.sup.2] = 95.0%; (4)
OC($/h) = 32.91x [BS.sup.0.765], [R.sup.2] = 93.7%. (5)
The following equations show UVER functions based on the other
backhoe shovel specification parameters:
CC($) = 164.3 x [DD.sup.4.256], [R.sup.2] = 68.6%; (6)
CC($) = 435.8 x [DH.sup.3.698], [R.sup.2] = 85.1%; (7)
CC($) = 4.279 x [W.sup.1.096], [R.sup.2] = 97.1%; (8)
CC($) = 878.2 x [HP.sup.1.176], [R.sup.2] = 93.9%; (9)
OC($/h) = 0.091 x [DD.sup.3.340], [R.sup.2] = 74.8%; (10)
OC($/h) = 0.079 x [DH.sup.3.268], [R.sup.2] = 85.4%; (11)
OC($/h) = 0.003 x W0.893, [R.sup.2] = 94.5%; (12)
OC($/h) = 0.238 x [HP.sup.0.971], [R.sup.2] = 93.7%. (13)
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
4.2. Multiple regression analysis
Performing the PCA technique on these five backhoe shovel
parameters to describe their interrelation pattern, the number of PCs
will usually be equal to the number of independent original variables.
Table 3 shows the eigenvectors of the correlation matrix that represent
the matrix of the weights for the PCs, which demonstrates the relative
importance of each standardized parameter in the PC calculations (He, Ma
2010).
The eigenvalue of the correlation matrix is shown in Table 4. There
are no multi-collinearities between PCs, because they are uncorrelated,
and the regression calculations are also simplified. If all the PCs are
submitted to the MVLR, then the outcome is equal to the model attained
by least squares, so the significant variances caused by
multi-collinearities have not departed. However, estimation of the least
squares predictions via MVLR based on PCA may be more stable than common
calculation (Flury, Riedwyl 1988). Therefore, in this study all five PCs
ware selected as inputs to the MVLR model.
To identify non-significant PCs and derive the best estimation
functions for the costs of a backhoe shovel, MVLR is performed on the PC
scores using stepwise variable selection procedures (Sousa et al. 2007).
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the results of the MVLR model on the capital
and operating costs of these equipments, respectively. The regression
coefficients of PCs are highlighted in the "B" Column. The
"Beta" coefficients are the standardized regression
coefficients. It is important to note that the advantage of
"Beta" coefficients in comparison with "B"
coefficients is that their magnitudes facilate the assessment of the
relative contribution of each PC in the estimation function. As
indicated in Tables 5 and 6, PC is the most effective variable in the
cost functions (with regard to "Beta" coefficient). A t-Test
is used to assess the significance of the regression coefficients. The
significant variables are given in bold in Tabes 5 and 6. Eqs (14) and
(15) show the relationships between costs and PCs:
CC($) = -1648260 x [PC.sub.1] - 1516023 x [PC.sub.2] - 973745 x
[PC.sub.3] + 3690728; (14)
OC($ / h) = -86.305 x [PC.sub.1] - 62.27 x [PC.sub.2] + 220.229.
(15)
Table 7 summarizes the coefficients of determination for the
models. As can be observed in the "R-square" (the coefficient
of determination) column in Table 7, about 96.37% of variation in the
operating cost of backhoe shovels is explained by the proposed MVLR
model. R-square has a weakness; each additional variable used in the
equation will, at least, result in a higher R-Square, even when the new
variable causes the equation to become less efficient. The adjusted
R-Square (adj [R.sup.2]) value is an attempt to correct this shortcoming
by adjusting both the numerator and the denominator of R-square by their
respective degrees of freedom (Gujarati 2003). It is adjusted by
dividing the error sum and total sums of squares through their
respective degrees of freedom (Eq. (16)) (Gujarati 2003):
adj[R.sup.2] = 1 - [(Res SS / df) / (Total SS / df)], (16)
where Res SS is the error sums of squares, the Total SS is the
total sums of squares and df is their respective degree of freedom.
The eigenvectors of the correlation matrix (Table 3) are multiplied
by the "B" coefficient calculated using MVLR (Tables 5 and 6)
to obtain the costs as functions of the original variables. Then the new
standardized coefficients are transformed to their initial position, by
Eq. (2). The final MVLR cost estimation functions are presented as
follows:
CC = 81770BS + 110325DD - 186064DH + 5.946W + 1786.3HP + 129073;
(17)
OC = 4.99BS - 1.193DD + 3.554DH + 0.00028W + 0.067HP-10.69. (18)
The estimated costs can be updated as follows:
[C.sub.x] - ([I.sub.x] x [C.sub.2010])/[I.sub.2010], (19)
where C indicates cost and x and I are proposed year and cost
index, respectively.
4.3. Model performance
In this study, each model's performance is measured with the
MAER, which was determined with Eq. (3). The MAER obtained from the UVER
and MVLR models for cost estimation functions are presented in Table 8.
As is observed, the MAER values are smaller for the multiple regression
analyses for both the capital and the operating costs, therefore, by
using MVLR functions the capital and operating costs can be estimated
with a error no more that 13.85% and 11.44% in cases of capital and
operating costs, respectively, while these bounds for UVER functions is
about 19.49 and 20.89 for capital and operating costs, respectively.
5. Case example
Sungun Copper Mine is located in East Azerbijan province
approximately 125 Km east of the city of Tabriz is one of the main
copper deposits of Iran. Feasibility studies were shown that open pit
mining technique is the most appropriate method for Sungun Copper Mine
(Bazzazi et al. 2009). By using open-pit method, the waste to ore ratio
in this mine will be 1.8:1 and an amount of 384 million tons of ore with
0.665 percentage of copper grade can be mined. Total Sungun Copper
Mine's life is evaluated to be 31 years with an annual production
of 7 million tons in the first 5 years and 14 million tons for the
remaining 26 years (Karan Darya Co. 2011). Fig. 4 shows the location map
of Sungun Copper complex.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
The site preparation project for Sungun Copper Complex, including
over burden removal, access-road construction and smelter complex site
preparation began in the fourth quarter of 2010. The site plan of the
project has been shown in Fig. 5.
This project needs about 1.3 million m3 of excavation and
overburden removal operation including soil and rocky soil removal
operations. The equipment fleet used in this project is listed in Table
9.
Table 10 lists the model, number and specification of backhoe
shovels used in this project.
MVLR model has been used to estimate operational cost of backhoe
shovels. Table 11 shows the estimated cost of each machine by using
proposed MVLR model vs. the actual operational costs calculated from in
site operations as well as the calculated MAER values.
Regarding to the number of backhoe shovels used in the project, the
total operational cost of backhoe shovel fleet is estimated about 483.78
US$/hour, while the actual in site operational cost of these equipment
is recorded as 523.34 US$/hour.
6. Conclusions
The objective of this paper was to establish reliable cost
estimating models for backhoe shovels which are popular for material
handling in mining and construction projects. For this, regression
techniques have been adopted due to the mathematical background and
their explanatory values. Based on the collected data, two cost
estimation models in the form of uni-variable exponential regression
(UVER) and multi-variable linear regression (MVLR) have been developed.
These models are quick, easy and accurate tools and can be useful for
making accurate decisions about the size of the loading equipment fleet
in construction and mining projects. The UVER model presents a rough
estimate suitable for preliminary cost estimations while the MVLR model
is more detailed with reasonable accuracy and can be appropriate for
detailed estimates in feasibility studies.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support and hard work of M. Eng.
Hassanzadeh as well as the other managers of Sungun Copper Complex who
were instrumental in the successful delivery of the case example
referred to in this work. In addition we would like to note that the
reviewers made very useful and objective comments that helped improve
the final manuscript; their input is very much appreciated.
doi: 10.3846/13923730.2012.692705
References
Asmar, M. El.; Hanna, A. S.; Whited, G. 2011. New approach to
developing conceptual cost estimates for highway projects, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ASCE 137(11): 942-949.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000355
Bazzazi, A. A.; Osanloo, M.; Karimi, B. 2009. Optimal open pit
mining equipment selection using fuzzy multiple attribute decision
making approach, Archive of Mining Science 54(2): 301-320.
Camm, T. W. 1991. Simplified cost models for prefeasibility mineral
evaluations. USBM, Information Circular 9298. [accessed 10 May 2011].
Available from Internet: http://pubs.usgs.gov/usbmic/ic-9298/html/
Camm, T. W. 1994. Simplified cost models for prefeasibility mineral
evaluations, Mining Engineering 46(6): 559-562.
Collier, K. 1987. Fundamentals of construction estimating and cost
accounting with computer application. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Englewood
Cliffs. 352 p.
Fan, H.; Abourizk, S.; Kim, H.; Zai'ane, O. 2008. Assessing
residual value of heavy construction equipment using predictive data
mining model, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering ASCE 22(3):
181-191. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2008)22:3(181)
Flury, B.; Riedwyl, H. 1988. Multivariate statistics: A practical
approach. London: Chapman and Hall. 304 p.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1217-5
Gransberg, D. D.; Popescu, C. M.; Ryan, R. C. 2006. Construction
equipment management for engineers, estimators and owners. Taylor &
Francis Group, UK. 552 p.
Gujarati, D. 2003. Basic econometrics. 4th Ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill. 1002 p.
Gunst, R. F. 1983. Regression analysis with multicollinear
predictor variables: definition, derection and effects, Combinations in
Statistics--Theory and Methods 12(19): 2217-2260.
Hassanien, A.; Moselhi, O. 2002. Automated data acquisition and
planning of highway construction, in Proc. of the 19th Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2002), 23-25 September,
2002, Gaithesburg, Maryland, 149-154.
He, F.; Ma, C. 2010. Modeling greenhouse air humidity by means of
artificial neural network and principal component analysis, Computers
and Electronics in Agriculture 71(Supplement 1): S19-S23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.07.011
Hwang, S. 2011. Time series models for forecasting construction
costs using time series indexes, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management ASCE 137(9): 656-662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862. 0000350
InfoMine USA Inc., 2010. Mine and Mill Equipment Cost. [accessed 10
May 2011]. Available from Internet: http://www.costmine.com
InfoMine USA Inc., 2007. Mine and Mill Equipment Cost. [accessed 10
May 2011]. Available from Internet: http://www.costmine.com
Jennrich, R. J. 1995. An introduction to computational statistics,
regression analysis. Englewood: Prentice-Hall. 364 p.
Jolliffe, I. T. 1986. Principal component analysis. New York:
Springer-Verlag. 502 p.
Karan Darya Co. 2011. Sungun Sopper Complex project technical
report. 56 p.
Kim, G.-H.; An, S.-H.; Kang, K.-I. 2004. Comparison of construction
cost estimating models based on regression analysis, neural networks,
and case-based reasoning, Building and Environment 39(10): 1235-1242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.013
Mular, A. L. 1982. Mining and mineral processing equipment costs
and preliminary capital cost estimations. Canadian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, Montreal, Special Vol. 25. 265 p.
Mular, A. L.; Poulin, R. 1998. CAPCOSTS: A handbook for estimating
mining and mineral processing equipment costs and capital expenditures
and aiding mineral project evaluations. Montreal: Canadian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Special Vol. 47. 319 p.
Nichols, H. L.; Day, D. A. 1999. Moving the earth: the workbook of
excavation. 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill. 1232 p.
Noakes, M.; Lanz, T. 1993. Cost estimation handbook for the
Australian mining industry. Carlton South: Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy (Aus IMM). 412 p.
O'Hara, T. A. 1980. Quick guides to the evaluation of
orebodies, CIM Bulletin 73(2): 87-99.
O'Hara, T. A. 1981. Mine evaluation, Mineral Industry Costs,
in J. R. Hoskins (Ed.), Northwest Mining Association, Spokane, WA,
89-99.
O'Hara, T. A.; Suboleski, S. C. 1992. Costs and cost
estimation, in Mining Engineering Handbook. 2nd Ed. SME, Littleton 1:
405-124.
Park, S.-C.; Hong, T. H.; Koo, K.-J.; Hyun, C.-T. 2010. Selection
model of representative items for the subcontractors' cost index in
multi-family housing projects, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 16(2): 278-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.32
Petrick, A.; Dewey, R. 1987. Microcomputer cost models for mining
and milling, in Mineral Resource Management by Personal Computer,
Chapter 12. SME. 7 p.
Pratt, D. J. 2004. Fundamentals of construction estimating. 2nd Ed.
Thomson Delmar Learning. 413 p.
R. S. Means Company. 2005. RS Means building construction cost data
63. 704 p.
Sayadi, A. R.; Lashgari, A.; Basiri, M. B. 2010a. Loading and
hauling equipments maintenance cost estimation in surface mining, in
International Congress on eMaintenance, 22-24 June, 2010, Lulea, Sweden,
212-217.
Sayadi, A. R.; Lashgari, A.; Oraee, K.; Yavari, M. 2010b. Hoisting
equipment cost estimation in underground mines, in Haul and Hoist SME
Conference, 12-17 September, 2010, Las Vegas, USA, 193-200.
Sharma, S. 1996. Applied multivariate techniques. New York: John
Wiley. 512 p.
Skibniewski, M.; Armijos, A. 1990. Linear programming approach to
construction equipment and labour assignments, Civil Engineering Systems
7(1) 44-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02630259008970569
Sonmez, R.; Ontepeli, B. 2009. Predesign cost estimation of urban
railway projects with parametric modeling. Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management 15(4): 405-409.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.405-409
Sousa, S. I.V.; Martins, F. G.; Alvim-Ferraz, M. C. M.; Pereira, M.
C. 2007. Multiple linear regression and artificial neural networks based
on principal components to predict ozone concentrations, Environmental
Modelling & Software 22(1): 97-103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.002
Stebbins, S. A. 1987. Cost estimation handbook for small placer
mines. US Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9170. 94 p.
Tatari, O.; Skibniewski, M. 2006. Integrated agent-based
construction equipment management: conceptual design, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 12(3): 231-236.
Thal, A. E.; Cook, J. J.; White, E. D. III 2010. Estimation of cost
contingency for air force construction projects, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ASCE 136(11): 1181-1189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000227
Twort, A. C.; Rees, J. G. 2004. Civil engineering project
management. 4th Ed. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. 231 p.
USBM. 1987. US Bureau of mines cost estimating system handbook.
Mining and beneficiation of metallic and nonmetallic minerals expected
fossil fuels in the United States and Canada. United States Bureau of
Mines, Open file report 10-87, Denver, Colorado. 134 p.
Wilmot, C. G.; Mei, B. 2005. Neural network modeling of highway
construction costs, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
131(7): 765-772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:
7(765)
Zavadskas, E. K.; Vilutiene, T. 2006. A multiple criteria
evaluation of multi-family apartment block's maintenance
contractors: I-Model for maintenance contractor evaluation and the
determination of its selection criteria, Building and Environment 41(5):
621-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.02.019
Ahmad Reza Sayadi (1), Ali Lashgari (2), Mohammad Majid Fouladgar
(3), Miroslaw J. Skibniewski (4)
(1,2) Department of Mining Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University,
Tehran, Iran
(3) Graduated from Tarbiat Modares University, Fateh Research
Group, Tehran, Iran
(4) Department of Management, Bialystok University of Technology,
16-001 Kleosin, Poland
E-mails: (1) sayadi@modares.ac.ir (corresponding author); (2)
ali.lashgari@gmail.com; (3) manager@fatehidea.com; 4mirek@umd.edu
Received 18 Jun. 2011; accepted 21 Sept. 2011
Ahmad Reza SAYADI. Faculty member and past head of the Department
of in Mining Engineering at Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran, Iran.
He has a PhD in Techniques and Economy of Mining. His research interests
include mining economics, feasibility study, heavy equipment management
and risk assessment. He is author or coauthor of over 50 publications on
a wide range of topics in mining engineering.
Ali LASHGARI. Master of Science at the Department of Mining
Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. He is author of
more than 15 journal and conference papers in the last couple of years.
His interests include construction economics and management, heavy
equipment management, feasibility studies, cost estimation and equipment
maintenance and operation.
Mohammad Majid FOULADGAR. Master of Science in the Dept of
Strategic Management, Manager of Fateh Reaserch Group, Tehran-Iran.
Author of 10 research papers. In 2007 he graduated from the Science and
Engineering Faculty at Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran-Iran. His
interests include decision support system, water resource, and
forecasting.
Miroslaw J. SKIBNIEWSKI. A. J. Clark Chair Professor of
Construction Engineering and Project Management at the University of
Maryland, College Park, USA and Visiting Professor, Dept. of Management,
Bialystok University of Technology, Poland. His research interests
include construction equipment operations, construction information
technologies and construction automation. He is past President of the
International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction,
and author or coauthor of over 200 publications on a wide range of
topics in construction engineering and management.
Table 1. The various applications of construction and mining cost
estimation
Proposed by Year Application
Hwang 2011 Prediction of cost indexes for
construction projects using time
series
Asmar et al. 2011 Estimation of highway project
costs using project evaluation and
review technology
Thal et al. 2010 Prediction of the required cost
contingency for air force
construction projects, using
multiple linear regression
Sayadi et al. 2010a Estimating maintenance cost of
loading and hauling equipment
using multiple linear regression
Sayadi et al. 2010b Estimation of hoisting equipment
cost for underground mines
Sonmez and Ontepeli 2009 Cost estimation of urban railway
projects
R.S. Means Company 2005 Presenting cost data for all
phases of building construction
Wilmot and Mei 2005 Estimation of highway construction
costs indexes using neural network
Pratt 2004 Pricing construction equipment
Mular 1982 Estimation of capital costs of
mining and mineral processing
equipment using
Mular and Poulin 1998 UVER method
Camm 1991, 1994 Development of UVER cost functions
for surface and underground mining
Noakes and Lanz 1993 Estimating the costs of mining and
milling industry, using graphical
or formulation methods
O'Hara and Suboleski 1992 Development of cost formulas as
estimators of capital and
operating costs of mining and
milling
Petrich and Dewey 1987 A computer model which utilizes
O'Hara's cost estimation model
Stebbins 1987 Using univariate exponential
regression method for small placer
mines cost prediction
USBM 1987 Estimation of mining and milling
cost items, using regression
analysis
Collier 1987 Fundamentals of building and
construction estimating and cost
accounting
Mular 1982 Estimation of mining and milling
costs using regression analysis
O'Hara 1980 1981 Surface and underground mining
cost estimation using exponential
regression
Infomine (1) Annually Cost estimation guide for mine and
mile equipment
(1) Cost.infomine.com
Table 2. Description of data
Parameter Min Max Mean St. dev.
Capital cost (CC) M$ 0.113 16.2 3.69 3.67
Operating cost (OC) $/h 12.14 656 220.23 191.04
Bucket size (BS) cu m 0.28 39.8 12.61 11.45
Digging depth (DD) m 4.1 16.2 9.248 2.68
Dump height (DH) m 5.1 15.9 10.22143 3.16685
Machine weight (W) ton 8.03 811 240.5 210.6
Power (HP) hp 54 3800 1109.8 983.16
Table 3. Eigenvector of correlation matrix
BS DD DH W HP
[PC.sub.1] -0.4577 -0.2837 0.2550 -0.1631 0.7864
[PC.sub.2] -0.4348 0.6541 -0.5865 -0.1340 0.1452
[PC.sub.3] -0.4430 0.4333 0.6805 0.2903 -0.2620
[PC.sub.4] -0.4538 -0.3275 -0.0078 -0.6497 -0.5145
[PC.sub.5] -0.4463 -0.4434 -0.3576 0.6701 -0.1648
Table 4. Eigenvalue of correlation matrix
Eigenvalue Total Cumulative Cumulative
Variance % Eigenvalue %
[PC.sub.1] 4.61 92.14 4.61 92.14
[PC.sub.2] 0.21 4.22 4.82 96.36
[PC.sub.3] 0.11 2.16 4.93 98.52
[PC.sub.4] 0.06 1.18 4.99 99.70
[PC.sub.5] 0.01 0.30 5.00 100.00
Table 5. Regression summary for capital cost ($) for backhoe shovel
Beta Std. Error B
of Beta
Intercept 3690728
[PC.sub.1] -0.964430 0.030784 -1648260
[PC.sub.2] -0.189797 0.030784 -1516023
[PC.sub.3] -0.087324 0.030784 -973745
[PC.sub.4] -0.038305 0.030784 -578859
[PC.sub.5] -0.010976 0.030784 -330291
Std. Error T(26) P-value
of B
Intercept 111147.1 33.2058 0.000000
[PC.sub.1] 52611.3 -31.3290 0.000000
[PC.sub.2] 245890.3 -6.1654 0.000002
[PC.sub.3] 343269.2 -2.8367 0.008716
[PC.sub.4] 465197.5 -1.2443 0.224479
[PC.sub.5] 926394.0 -0.3565 0.724318
Table 6. Regression summary for operating cost ($/h) for backhoe
shovel
Beta Std. Error B
of Beta
Intercept 220.229
[PC.sub.1] -0.970 0.037 -86.305
[PC.sub.2] -0.150 0.037 -62.272
[PC.sub.3] -0.015 0.037 -8.592
[PC.sub.4] 0.014 0.037 11.025
[PC.sub.5] -0.024 0.037 -37.833
Std. Error T(26) P-value
of B
Intercept 7.029 31.331 0.000
[PC.sub.1] 3.327 -25.939 0.000
[PC.sub.2] 15.551 -4.004 0.000
[PC.sub.3] 21.709 -0.396 0.695
[PC.sub.4] 29.420 0.375 0.711
[PC.sub.5] 58.587 -0.646 0.524
Table 7. MVLR coefficients of determination
R-square Adjusted R-square
Capital Cost 0.754 0.9706
Operating Cost 0.9637 0.9567
Table 8. The MAER obtained from the UVER and MVLR
UVER MVLR
Capital Cost 19.49 13.85
Operating Cost 20.89 11.44
Table 9. Equipment fleet used in the project
Equipment Number
Backhoe shovel 20
Wheel loader 14
Dozer 17
Truck 62
Grader 4
Compactor 4
Tractor 1
Truck, water 2
Table 10. Backhoe shovels used in the project
Model Number BS DD DH W HP
(cu m) (m) (m) (ton)
Komatsu PC220 5 1.28 6.7 7.035 22.84 168
Komatsu PC200 4 1.17 6.89 6.095 20.63 155
Hyundai 250LC 2 1.07 6.05 6.86 25.49 163
Hyundai 320LC 2 1.14 6.37 7.05 32 237
New Holland E265 BJ 1 1.1 7.01 7.7 28.27 184
New Holland E215 3 1.223 6.7 9.47 21.7 150
BJ-ST
Daewoo Doosan 230 3 0.92 6.61 6.985 21.5 163
Table 11. Estimated vs. actual operational costs
Estimated Estimated
Model operational operational MAER (%)
cost($/h) cost ($/h)
Komatsu PC220 24.02 27.18 11.63
Komatsu PC200 19.03 22.24 14.43
Hyundai R250 LC 22.79 24.52 7.05
Hyundai R320 LC 28.41 27.32 3.99
New Holland E265 BJ 26.19 28.93 9.47
New Holland E215 BJ-ST 31.18 29.75 4.81
Daewoo Doosan 230 21.81 25.54 14.60
Average MAER: 9.43%