Combined Use of Design of Experiment and Computer Simulation for Resources Level Determination in Concrete Pouring Process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v64.1315Keywords:
Construction process productivity, concrete pouring process, design of experiment, computer simulationAbstract
Construction managers and planners are always involved in answering questions regarding the effects of changing the level of resources involved in construction activities on project performance. The planners strive to determine the best resource level combination that optimizes the performance measures such as productivity. In this study, a unique approach involving the combined use of a powerful Quality Engineering tool, Design of Experiment (DOE) and Simulation for determining the best combination of resources level for a real-world construction process, viz. concrete pouring process. DOE enabled the experimental plan to be designed in the form of a twice replicated, 24 full factorial designs with 5 center points. This experimental plan involved 37 experiments. Simulation has enabled the construction process investigated to be realistically modelled. Therefore, instead of performing field trials involving 37 experiments, these experiments are simulated in order to obtain the response investigated, which is productivity. A model, for predicting concrete pouring process productivity, was successfully developed and the optimum resources level was also determined.
Â
References
Nikakhtar, A., Abbasian Hosseini, A., Wong, K. Y. 2012. Sensitivity Analysis of Construction Processes Using Computer Simulation: A Case Study. Advance Science Letters. 13: 680.
Dunlop, P., Smith S. D. 2004). Planning, Estimation and Productivity in the Lean Concrete Pour. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 11(1): 55–64.
Sarker, B. R, Egbelu, P. J., Liao, T. W., Yu, J. 2012. Planning and Design Models for Construction Industry: A Critical Survey. Automation in Construction. 22: 123–134.
Hwang, B., Yeo, Z., B. 2011. Perception on Benefits of Construction Waste Management in the Singapore Construction Industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 18(4): 394–406.
Chen, S., Griffis, F. H., Chen, P., Chang, l. 2012. Simulation and Analytical Techniques for Construction Resource Planning and Scheduling. Automation in Construction. 21: 99.
Zhang, H., Tam, C. M. 2003. Fuzzy Decision-making for Dynamic Resource Allocation. Construction Management and Economics. 21(1): 31–41.
Huang R., Chenb J., Sunb K. 2004. Planning Gang Formwork Operations for Building Construction Using Simulations. Automation in Construction. 13(6): 765–779.
Montgomery, D. 2009. Basic Experiment Design for Process Improvement Statistical Quality Control. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA.
Wang, Sh., Halpin, D. W. 2004. Simulation Experiment for Improving Construction Processes. Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, (2004) January 5-7, Washington, DC, USA.
Hassan, M. M., Gruber, S. 2008. Simulation of concrete paving operations on Interstate-74. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 134(1): 2.
Ebrahimy, Y., AbouRizk, S., M., Fernando, S., Mohamed, Y. 2011. Simulation Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis of a Tunneling Construction Project’s Supply Chain. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 18(5): 462–480.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of articles that appear in Jurnal Teknologi belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions, or any other reproductions of similar nature.
