# Resource-Based Quality Performance Estimation Method for Construction Operations
## 4 Test Case
### Simulation Results  
Figure 3 is a graphic user interface that allows users to select the types of resources that can be input by calling the information stored in the datasheet. Among the various types of alternatives stored in each resource category, the sensitivity analysis module was performed by selecting the resources presented above in this study (refer to Table 4).  
Total simulation iterations for the sensitivity analysis were 864 (= 3 \(\times\) 2 \(\times\) 2 \(\times\) 3 \(\times\) 3 \(\times\) 4 \(\times\) 2). The system executes the simulation experiment using the variables, calculates operation performances (i.e., duration, cost, quality, and productivity) of the CFA pile installation process. As shown in Figure 4, 864 results of the sensitivity analysis were presented. The simulation results of the resource type combination were identified as the time interval value [214.17:244.77] minutes, the cost interval value $[4944.72:5550.23], and the quality interval value [83.20:93.05]%.  
In this study, the sensitivity analysis simulation of various combinations of resource types was performed, and the methodology to achieve high quality within a limited duration and cost of the CFA pile installation process was presented. This supports the establishment of an operation plan that guarantees the maximum quality within the budget and schedule requested by the field managers. For example, when the limitation of duration (230 min), cost ($5000), and quality (85%) were set as the on-site constraint, only 7 sets of the resource combination among 864 results were satisfied. Among the simulation results, the resource combination with the maximum quality and minimum duration performance was identified as [Machine: 50 ton, Lifting Excavator: 320B, Cleaning Excavator: 330B, Machine Crew: Pile-10 years, Cage Crew: Rebar-10 years, Cage: High-Tension deformed bar, Concrete: 25-210-12]. The resource combination with the minimum cost was identified  
Figure 3: Graphic user interface for choosing available types of resources.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Work Task**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Type**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Task Time Function (min.)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Minimum** & **Mean** & **Maximum** \\ \hline Adjust axis and Verticality & Combi & 1.94 & 3.74 & 5.03 \\ Drilling & Normal & 4.44 & 7.21 & 9.07 \\ Pouring & Combi & 7.26 & 7.83 & 9.68 \\ Lift Auger & Normal & 0.97 & 1.15 & 1.45 \\ Move to another Location & Normal & 1.94 & 3.75 & 5.81 \\ Clean Pile Head & Combi & 2.13 & 3.08 & 4.52 \\ Adjust Pile Head & Combi & 1.29 & 2.13 & 3.87 \\ Moving and Lifting Cage & Combi & 4.45 & 5.91 & 10.16 \\ Rebar Cage Fraction & Combi & 1.45 & 4.03 & 5.32 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Task time function for work tasks.  
as [Machine: 50 ton, Lifting Excavator: 320B, Cleaning Excavator: 325B, Machine Crew: Pile-20 years, Cage Crew: Rebar-15 years, Cage: Normal deformed bar, Concrete: 25-210-15] (refer to Table 6). Users can search for the optimal resource combination according to the on-site priority of the performance indicators among resource combinations that satisfy the constraints.