Ioannou, P G and Martinez, J C (1996) Comparison of construction alternatives using matched simulation experiments. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(3), pp. 231-241. ISSN 0733-9364
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | confidence interval, effectiveness, efficiency, variance, simulation experiment, stream, construction process, methodology, construction method |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, building construction, measurement and scaling, water management, research methods, performance management, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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