Touran, A (1997) Probabilistic model for tunneling project using Markov chain. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(4), pp. 444-449. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Actual tunnel advance rates from the Outfall Tunnel of the Boston Harbor Cleanup Project are analyzed. It is shown that states of work and nonwork for the tunnel boring machine can be modeled with a Markov chain. A general probabilistic approach is proposed for developing the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the total length that can be tunneled in a given time frame. Simulation models are developed to verify the results of the analytical model and also to simulate the distribution for the time necessary to tunnel a certain length (in this case the remainder of the tunnel). The validity of the predictive model is verified using the data from the completed project. The proposed approach may be used for relatively long tunnels with durations extending over several months where the tunneling has already begun and sufficient progress data have been collected. The data from progress up to a certain date may be used for forecasting the length of tunnel that can be constructed in a specified duration.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | Markov chain, forecasting, validity, duration, tunnel, distribution function, analytical model |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, project controls, probability and distributions, theoretical framing, prediction and forecasting, evaluation and assessment methods, mathematical modelling |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Time Control |
| 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