Amirkhanian, S N; Burati, J L and Mirchandani, H C (1994) Effect of testing variability on contractor payment for asphalt pavements. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(3), pp. 579-592. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Acceptance of asphalt pavements on a lot basis depends on how well the material conforms to specified quality characteristics. If a lot does not fall within the specified tolerance limits for a given characteristic, the contractor payment for that lot may be adjusted according to a predetermined payment schedule. This study evaluated the effect on contractor payment of the variability of the test method. Payment factors based on selected state highway agency specifications, typical of the most commonly used types of acceptance plans, were estimated using simulation techniques. The results were illustrated by plotting the operating characteristics (OC) in terms of expected payment. The OC plots show that the contractor can receive reduced payment even when there is no material variability and the process mean is on target. This reduction was due to the relatively large magnitude of the testing variability as compared with the tolerance range specified in the simulated acceptance plans. The simulation routine developed to estimate contractor payment can, with suitable modifications, be used for any acceptance plan.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | estimate, asphalt pavement, routine, specification, variability, agency, testing |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, professional practice, contractual condition, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here