# Resource-Based Quality Performance Estimation Method for Construction Operations
## 4 Test Case
### Comparison with the Existing Method and Discussion  
The simulation result data of the CFA pile installation process proposed by [PERSON] [28] was used to compare the two methods. The results were compared through a simulation experiment of pile installation of different diameters (i.e., 20.32 cm, 25.40 cm, 30.48 cm, 35.56 cm, 40.64 cm, and 45.72 cm) with a depth of 18.29 m using the test case model. For the TTF of each work task in the simulation model, the values suggested by [PERSON] [28] were used according to the diameter. The triangular distribution function was used for the TTF of each work task according to the file diameter, and detailed time values are presented in [PERSON] [28]. In this case study, Crawler Crane [50 ton], Lifting Excavator [320B], Cleaning Excavator [325B], Cage Crew [Rebar-10 years], Machine Crew [Pile-10 years], Ready Mixed Concrete [Remicon 25-21-12], and cage [Rebar Normal deformed bar] were initialized for the simulation experiments. Table 7 presents the simulation results of [PERSON] [28] and this method according to the pile diameter. The Result A and B represent [PERSON]'s and this method's simulation results, respectively.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Performance**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Limit**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Crane**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Optimal Resource Combination**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cage**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Crew**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cage**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concrete**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dur.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cost**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Quall.**} \\  & & & & **Excav.** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Dur and & 230 min. & 50 ton & 320 B & 330 B & Pile & Rebar & High-Tension & 25-210-12 & 216.94 & 4991.62 & 86 \\ Quality & 85\% & & & & (10 years) & (10 years) & deformed bar & 25-210-15 & 222.20 & 4984.62 & 85.2 \\ \hline Cost & 85000 & 50 ton & 320 B & 325 B & Pile & Rebar & Normal & 25-210-15 & 222.20 & 4984.62 & 85.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Optimal resource combination based on prioritization of performance indicators and simulation results.  
Figure 4: Graphic user interface for sensitivity analysis and simulation results.  
The simulation result shows that the two methods have slightly different productivity. It is due to the different simulation model configurations (i.e., interaction among modeling components, relationship among modeling components, etc.) between [PERSON]'s model and the case model in this study. However, according to the DES calculation criteria, it is confirmed that both systems produce valid results. This is proof that both methods have the validity of the discrete event simulation system. On the other hand, the cost is calculated much more conservatively by this method. Costs may vary depending on the country, year, location, economic status, etc. However, since this method calculates based on the amount of material and the hourly cost of equipment and labor, this study's calculation process reflects the reality more than the calculation method based on unit production cost suggested by [PERSON] [28]. [PERSON]'s model calculates the total cost using Equation (7).  
\[TC=S_{u}+(Q_{r}\times C_{r})+(Q_{c}\times C_{c})+O \tag{7}\]  
where, \(TC\) is Total cost; \(S_{u}\) is unit production cost ($/pile); \(Q_{r}\) is rebar quantity; \(C_{r}\) is rebar cost per unit; \(Q_{c}\) is concrete quantity; \(C_{c}\) is concrete cost per unit; and \(O\) is overhead cost.  
In addition, there is an absence of a method for quantitatively estimating construction quality performance at a detailed level based on the DES. The method presented in this study helps to support the scientific decision-making of managers when establishing a construction plan for pile construction.