Rilett, L R (1998) Identifying component variability of end product specification tests. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(2), pp. 133-138. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In recent years there has been a move away from methods and material specification for pavement projects and toward end product specifications (EPS) as part of a general improvement in quality assurance programs. Typically, the EPS are based on the average of a number of measurements on a given day, and the between-test variance and the between-days variance are ignored. This paper presents a methodology for identifying the components of the total variability, estimating the variance associated with each component, and identifying the responsibility of each component to overall variance. The total variability and individual component variability may be used for a number of quality assurance applications - for example, identifying potential problem areas in the construction of a particular pavement, as input to new end product specifications that account for the variability in the measured results, or for aiding in setting appropriate bonus/penalty schedules, which are typically used in conjunction with EPS. The statistical approach adopted in this paper is a nested analysis of variance and the methodology will be tested on five years of data from an EPS program in the Province of Alberta, Canada. Data are from Marshal density and field density tests of asphalt concrete, although the procedure may be used for any EPS field test.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | quality assurance, specification, penalty, estimating, field test, program, methodology, quality assurance program, Canada, variance, density, variability |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, financial and cost management, data collection methods, statistical analysis, quality assurance, regulatory law, measurement and scaling, contractual condition, Geography, research methods, software systems |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Cost Management, Quality Management, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| 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