Comparison of Construction Alternatives Using Matched Simulation Experiments
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122, Issue 3
Abstract
The comparison of alternative construction methods is one of the principal reasons for using simulation to model construction processes. The efficiency and effectiveness of such comparisons can be greatly improved by the prudent use of “matched pairs,” a variance reduction technique based on dedicated and fully synchronized random number streams. The basic methodology is illustrated by using the STROBOSCOPE simulation system to compare two alternative construction methods for rock tunneling [Conventional versus the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM)]. For this example the effects are dramatic. The probability of identifying and choosing the cheaper construction method based on a single run increases from 55% to 96%, the variance of the cost difference decreases by two orders of magnitude, and the 95% confidence interval for the true cost difference given by 4,000 independent runs can be obtained by performing only seven replications using matched pairs. Besides this improvement in statistical efficiency, the use of matched pairs is a necessity for this example in order to compare the alternatives on a logical and equitable basis.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Halpin, D. W., and Riggs, L. S. (1992). Planning and analysis of construction operations . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
2.
Ioannou, P. G. (1987). “Geologic prediction model for tunneling.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, (113)4, 569–590.
3.
Ioannou, P. G. (1989a). “Evaluation of subsurface exploration programs.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, (115)3, 339–356.
4.
Ioannou, P. G. (1989b). “UM-CYCLONE, discrete-event simulation system.”Tech. Rep. UMCE 89-11, 89-12, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
5.
Ioannou, P. G., and Martinez, J. C. (1995). “Evaluation of alternative construction processes using simulation.”Proc., 1995 Constr. Congr., ASCE, New York, N.Y.
6.
Law, A. M., and Kelton, W. D. (1991). Simulation modeling and analysis, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
7.
Martinez, J. C. (1996). “STROBOSCOPE—stateand resource-based simulation of construction processes,” PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
8.
Martinez, J. C., and Ioannou, P. G. (1994). “General purpose simulation with STROBOSCOPE.”Proc., 1994 Winter Simulation Conf., Inst. of Electr. and Electronics Engrs. (IEEE), Piscataway, N.J., 1159–1166.
9.
Martinez, J. C., and Ioannou, P. G. (1995). “Advantages of the activity scanning approach in modeling complex construction processes.”Proc., 1995 Winter Simulation Conf., Inst. of Electr. and Electronics Engrs. (IEEE), Piscataway, N.J., 1024–1031.
10.
Martinez, J. C., Ioannou, P. G., and Carr, R. I. (1994). “Stateand resource-based construction process simulation.”Proc., ASCE 1st Congr. on Computing in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, New York, N.Y.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122 • Issue 3 • September 1996
Pages: 231 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1996
Published in print: Sep 1996
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.