Saha, S; Greville, C J and Mullins, T A (2001) Optimisation of construction process inspection rates using a learning approach. Construction Economics and Building, 1(2), pp. 1-13. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
In the construction industry, the determination of the number of inspections/tests to be performed for a repetitive task is an important issue. The quality of a completed task depends on a number of factors including the cost of inspection, the cost of failure, the average proportion defective (error rate) and the inspection rate. To achieve a higher quality level, 100% inspection can be performed, however, this is unlikely to be cost effective. To determine the optimum inspection rate, this paper suggests a probabilistic approach incorporating the acceptance-sampling plan and minimum cost method. The limitation of various sampling plans including the attribute proportional sampling plan and the double sampling plan are outlined. An example is presented in this paper to demonstrate the calculation of the optimum number of inspections/tests per lot.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | inspection; testing; quality control |
| Index terms: | testing, construction industry, construction process, quality control, sampling, inspection |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, professional practice, quality assurance, project delivery, data collection methods, building construction |
| Topics: | Site Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTE |
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