Design basis for Manhour norms
- Created
- 4
- 6
Manhours is a single word very commonly used to measure time, cost and effectiveness of supervision. There are lot of books, literatures and theories available in the market but none of them lay down the design basis of calculation of the same. Why dont we put our experience in writing here and find it out to derieve it in a structure way.
I am writing down the same here to start the discussioin rolling:
Based on our experience, we have worked out piping erection MHrs. norms as tabulated below:
| Manhours for CS piping erection including fitup: | ||||||
| Take: Size of CS pipe spool: 6", spools: 2 Nos., each of 4 Mtr | ||||||
| Qty of erection: 48 IM, at elevation of 10 Mtr | ||||||
| Sr. No. | Activity | Craft | Qty | Time (Hrs.) |
MHrs | Remarks |
| 1 | Scaffolding | Scaffolders | 6 | 8 | 48 | |
| 2 | Rigging of spool and placement in place |
Foreman: 0.5 Rigger: 4 |
4 | 3 | 12 | |
| 3 | Bevelling of pipe | Gascutter: 0.5 Grinder: 0.5 |
1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 4 | Alignment & Tack welding | Fitter : 1 Helper: 1 Tack welder: 1 |
3 | 2 | 6 | |
| 5 | Contingency @ 20%* | 13.4 | ||||
| Total | 80.4 | For 48 IM | ||||
| A | MHrs. Per IM: | 1.7 | ||||
| * | Contingency for interruptioin in front/ modification / material handling delays etc. | |||||
Hope such experience sharing will make our decision backed up by confidence and accurate.
4 replies
Oldest first- 0Maxime AUTHIER ·
Dear Brij, This is a good
Dear Brij,
This is a good idea and should be added into the dedicated section (Rates).
One comment anyway, I think we should not integrate contingency into the ratio. Usually contingency are added after the MHrs calculation on an overall quatity.
Rgds,
Maxime.
Log in or join to reply
ProjectControls.com is free to join. Members can post questions, reply, vote and follow discussions.
Existing members: your original username and password still work. Forgot password?