Jan 14, 2016 4:33 AM
Replying to DEBASIS CHAKRABARTI
...
I agree with Rami, there is no fixed international productivity benchmark. Then there are a few factors which may vary from site to site even for the same company. If Karthikeyan's company did achieve 400 KG before and now achieving only 200 KG then there has to be a root cause analysis to find what went wrong. Some of the questions that could be asked to compare the two sites are based on the following:
1. Degree of mechanization- usage (or lack of usage) of cranes and other material handling equipment as close as possible to the actual spot. If there is manual transport, then the overall tonnage goes down since some helpers would be actually utilized in enabling works.
2. Specific type of work - where higher dia of steel is used, the weight per meter length is more. Rami is right about the 32 mm example. But if we have more of, say 8 mm dia which is just 400 gram per meter then again the tonnage would go down. Also, in places like raft etc the tonnage would be more (with straight bars, higher dia etc) but in columns for example, will stirrups and vertical steel the tonnage would be less.
3. User friendliness of design- Its not uncommon to see designers opting for unusual shapes from their point of view of saving weight of reinforcement. However many a times the assembly of such steel become much more time consuming, thereby decreasing productivity and increasing overall costs.
4. Work Conditions on site- proper scaffoldings, walkways, access etc play a large role on increasing/ decreasing productivity. Also the right tools.
In addition to above "technical' points there are 'human points' like motivation levels, work conditions off site (stay, food, transport), climate, culture etc.
Community Champion
