Arambula, E and Gharaibeh, N (2014) Methods for accumulating construction and material quality test results and their effect on acceptance decisions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(8): 06014006, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Many state departments of transportation are currently shifting more acceptance sampling and testing responsibilities to contractors because of a shortage of personnel at highway agencies and intensive construction schedules. The practice of using contractor-performed test results for acceptance decisions is referred to here as contractor acceptance testing (CAT). Studies have shown the need for improving the power of the statistical process used to validate the contractor's test results. A potential improvement to CAT is to accumulate contractor's and agency's test results of consecutive lots to increase sample size and consequently increase the power of the statistical tests used to verify the contractor's test results. In this study, two different types of cumulative sampling methods (i.e., continuous cumulative and chain lot) are applied to actual test results obtained from the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), which includes contractor-performed test results and agency-performed test results from independent samples. The percent within limits (PWL) calculated according to KDOT's acceptance practices was compared to the PWL obtained by the alternative methods for more than 90 projects. The results show that a chain-lot method with three accumulated lots is a plausible way to increase the power of the F-test and t-test. The contribution of this study is a practical sampling method for state DOTs to improve their CAT practices by increasing the power of the F-test and t-test used in the verification process while staying close to current agency's practice in terms of pay factors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction materials and methods; contractors; quality control; sampling; statistics |
| Index terms: | agency, statistical test, personnel, statistics, quality control, testing, construction material, sampling, sample size |
| Subjects: | building materials, professional practice, project delivery, data collection methods, research design and methodology, mathematical modelling, sociology, statistical analysis, management |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Human Resources, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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