See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289312546

Enhancing construction claims analysis using computer simulation

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
2 715

5 authors, including:

Diya Al Malah Sasan Golnaraghi

Concordia University Concordia University
1 PUBLICATION 2 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 144 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tarek Zayed
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
567 PUBLICATIONS 11,011 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sasan Golnaraghi on 02 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 4th Construction Specialty Conference
4e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction

Montréal, Québec
May 29 to June 1, 2013 / 29 mai au 1 juin 2013

Enhancing Construction Claims Analysis Using Computer Simulation

Diya Al Malah1, Sasan Golnaraghi 1, Ramy Elfaizy1, Adhem Biok1,Tarek Zayed1.
1Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University

Abstract: Construction industry is described as a risky, complex, and multi-stakeholder business. In the
domain of construction, on-time and within budget completion is an imperative; but unanticipated delays
and its subsequent costly claims remain as an ongoing challenge. Construction claims are usually caused
by experiencing alternate scenarios that vary from the project’s original baseline. An effective
presentation of causal relationships facilitates claim resolution procedure. In fact, the improvement of
claim analysis process depends on enhancing the accuracy and the illustration of a claim case. This
paper shows the benefits of using modeling and simulation concurrent with traditional claim analysis
techniques such as the Measured Mile Method. Furthermore, simulation can be used as a standalone
solution, to improve time extension and loss of productivity calculations prior project completion. In
addition, simulation improves claim cases legibility for all stakeholders, especially those who have
minimum construction knowledge. This objective was illustrated in an actual tunneling construction claim
case-study. Simulation was utilized to demonstrate and analyze the conflict between the as-planned and
the as-built conditions at the construction site. Simulation model built for the impacted event accurately
predicted the time extension required due to unexpected soil condition. Productivity rates were analyzed
using two methods: Simulation and the Measured Mile Method. The results exhibited the importance of
utilizing simulation in evaluating construction claims.

1 Introduction

Design errors and unforeseen site conditions often lead to costly claims in construction projects. This
frequently leads to expansive and exhausting disputes which commonly results in involvement of third
party to assess such disputes. In this assessment process, the analyst should deal with a number of
complex issues (e.g. illustrating cause and effect, quantifying cost and time caused by delaying events,
assigning responsibility of delaying events). To evaluate and assess construction claims, many subjective
decisions must be taken by the analyst that result in questioning the validity of claims. In addition, the
most difficult part of assessing claim is to present the claim case in a way that will be convincing to the
plaintiff and defendant (Minkarah & Ahmad, 1989). Preparing delay claims demands substantial effort, as
it requires the detailed review of large stacks of project documentation to classify and establish the
causes of delays. This process is tedious, complicated, and costly, partly due to insufficient
documentation in construction projects (Alkass et al., 1995). An effective presentation of a complicated
delay claim requires both high quality and detailed information. Visual supplements such as computer
modeling in the presentation of a delay claim helps to make complex technical issues understandable.
Therefore, visual aids have played a significant role in the analysis of complicated cases (Keane &
Caletka, 2008).

Claims may be issued for time lost, loss of productivity, price escalation, and interest on any remaining
money, additional costs due to change orders, and others. One of the problematic aspects for participants
is quantifying the impact costs related to productivity losses (Levin, 1998). Analysis of the loss of
productivity has been the subject of considerable research in recent years. Measure mile method, total

CON-118-1
cost method and learning curve models have been used in productivity related disputes. Furthermore,
simulation has been found to be an attractive tool in demonstrating different construction disputes or
scenarios configuring resolving productivity losses and delays. In other words, construction simulation
techniques can be utilized to measure productivity of construction activities before and after occurred
delaying events. With an accurate representation of the activities constituting the process, the analyst can
estimate the production of the process and probabilities of meeting a given schedule.

Additionally, simulation can be applied to different types of claims that include productivity loss due to
changes, owner or trade-contractor interferences, or unexpected conditions. The contractor often seeks
compensation based on loss of productivity or change impact for non-recoverable costs or delays due to
conditions beyond his control. Simulation models have been successfully used to provide an accurate
representation of the original condition as expected at the time of bid and condition that would have been
encountered after the new facts arise. Since productivity loss is derived from factors such as weather,
labor skill, and site conditions, the simulator can build the simulation model and introduce the new facts to
study and analyze their impact on the productivity, cost or time of the project (AbouRizk & Dozzi, 1992).

This paper examines the application of construction simulation to enhance the understanding of delay
and productivity-related claims. For this purpose, two simulation models have been built for a tunneling
project. First model has been developed based on the as-planned information and the second model
based on the actual gathered information from the site. Thus, the authors can measure the expected
productivity based on the developed models.

2 Background

The significant increase in the power of microcomputers and their affordability has made it possible for
the construction industry to use computers in its daily operations. Over the past decades, computers have
been used to help with complex issues in the construction industry, such as claim resolution, negotiation,
planning, and scheduling.

Alkass et al. (1995) developed a computer system model for delay claims analysis and preparation, called
Computerized Delay Claims Analysis (CDCA). They described how a customized expert system for a
particular type of construction expertise claims was used to ease the progress of delay analysis and how
it can reduce the cost and time of claims preparation. Hammed (2002) developed a framework to
overcome the difficulties related to record keeping and retrieval procedures, called the Construction
Project Document Information Centre (CPDICenter). In another study, Baram (1994) described an
integrated system to support construction claims and litigation by supplying particular technical support
for document control, productivity, schedule analysis, delay, and impact cost calculations.

To instruct and educate inexperienced engineers about the legal consequences of construction disputes,
Diekmann and Kim (1992) designed a knowledge-based expert system intended to analyze claims
changes. Bubbers et al. (1992) depicted a computerized assistance approach for claims resolution using
a “Hypertext Information System”. The system provides relevant information for validating claims,
although it has one major drawback compared to other expert systems: it has no decision-making
capability. Ren et al. (2001) proposed an approach using intelligent agent technology, Multi-Agent System
(MAS), to effectively and efficiently perform claim negotiation. Their approach helps the parties reach an
agreement quickly, thereby mitigating the drawbacks of human mediator decisions in negotiations.
AbouRizk et al. (1993) used a computer simulation model to resolve construction disputes arising from
the inevitable changes in technical specifications. Simulation models were developed to estimate the cost
of operations before and after the modifications.

The delay responsibility, as well as the cost of damages, must be ascertained accurately to the
satisfaction of each party. One of the problematic aspects for researchers and project participants is
quantifying the impact costs related to productivity losses caused by delays. Analysis of the loss of
productivity has been the subject of considerable research in recent years (Moselhi et al., 1991, Hanna et
al., 1999). The objectives of process simulation range from productivity measurement and risk analysis to

CON-118-2
resource allocation and planning. With detailed representation of the activities forming the process,
simulation can predict the productivity rates of the construction operations and associated likelihoods of
meeting a specific milestone. As resources in construction include costly machinery and labour, various
distribution scenarios can be studied to select the optimum solution (AbouRizk et al., 1992).

High repetitive construction projects such as tunnelling applied modeling and simulation to predict
realistically projects duration. Tunnelling construction typically consists of three main cycles: excavation,
dirt removal and tunnel support. The interdependency of these cycles, and the unanticipated geological
conditions makes tunnelling a high risk construction projects. Statistical features of simulating provide
more realistic representation of activities duration (AbouRizk et al., 1992).Therefore, simulating tunneling
advance rate is significant for predicting the project’s completion date, schedule endorsement, equipment
selection, and costs estimating (Touran & Asai, 1987).

3 Methodology

In this paper, a construction claim case was studied using a realistic tunneling case-study. The claim
analysis was performed using two methods:

First, a stochastic simulation model was constructed to represent the impacted section of the project (i.e.
after the cause of the claim occurred). To generate the impacted model, as-planned model was created
first to represent the time required to complete the project during planning phase. Later, the impacted
activities were added to the as-planned model. The impacted model was utilized to estimate the required
time extension to complete the related segment of the project. The simulation model was able to mimic
one complete cycle of the tunneling excavation. Each cycle was designed to excavate a fixed length.
However, the time required to complete one cycle was variable and it was influenced by delay causes.
Construction processes durations were represented by a probability distribution, rather than one single
deterministic number. The logic behind this approach is counting for productivity loss by relying on
statistical data represented in the probability distribution functions.

Second, Measured Mile method was used to illustrate the problematic areas and their effects on the
examined section of the project. The case-study cost reports, working hours, and excavated quantities
were utilized to demonstrate productivity rates during the related period. Loss of productivity due to the
sudden variation was calculated using Measured Mile method.

The required time extension for the impacted section was calculated deterministically (traditionally), by
simply adding the impacted processes to the original duration. The impacted model production rate was
analyzed and compared to the as-built (actual) and deterministic production rates. Finally, the results
were discussed showing how simulation is utilized to improve claim analysis and visualization.
Furthermore, it was demonstrated how using simulation and Measured Mile method together can be a
powerful tool in analyzing and presenting construction claims. Figure 1 illustrates the paper’s
methodology.

4 Case Study and Claim Description

The case study is the construction of a concrete tunnel project in Canada that has been executed and
assessed for delay claims. This project experienced various types of delays and also offers access to the
related information as the source of inputs for the developed simulation model; thus, it is a valuable
practice case for delay claim assessment. Meanwhile, for confidentiality purposes, the source of the
information and the parties engaged in this project are not revealed. The tunneling project consists of
three main sections: A, B, and C. However, the focus of this paper is primarily on the excavation of
section (C). Tunnelling procedure consisted of 26 construction processes falling into five major areas:
start up, excavation, steel structure (ripping), concrete work, and demobilization.

CON-118-3
 Enhancing Construction Claims Analysis Using Computer Simulation

Literature Review

Simulation & Modeling Tunneling Construction

Construction Claim
in Construction Processes

Delay Claim
Real Life Case-
& Loss of
study
Productivity

Developing Stochastic Model for As-Planned

and Impacted Construction Processes

Performing Conventional Loss of Productivity

claim Assessment by
Using Measured Mile Method
(As-planned Schedule) (As-built schedule, cost
& performance data)

Quantifying Required Time Extension by Using

Simulation Technique
Presenting Claim by Utilizing Visualization Feature
of Simulation Modeling
Quantifying Loss of productivity

Comparing results of Stochastic Model with Deterministic Model

Conclusion

Figure 1: Research Methodology Flowchart

In this case-study, the project documents were used to recover the as-planned and as-built schedules.
The loss of productivity assessment is based on the delaying events’ information which was extracted
from project documents. Unanticipated rock conditions encounter the section course. Consequently, the
project’s completion date could not be achieved. In fact, section C was scheduled to start on Aug 22,
2001, and to be delivered by Jan 15, 2002. However, it could not have been delivered on the agreed
upon date. Section C was delivered on Mar 3, 2002 instead, which represents a delay of 29 working days.
Table 1 summarizes the as-planned and as-built durations. The contractor claimed compensation to
recover the damages due to the time and cost overrun. The contractor experienced various rock cavity
conditions, which were substantially different from what was anticipated in the geological soil report;
hence, extensive ribbing and ongoing soil investigation were required. The contractor had to continuously
install extra ribs in many locations all through the tunnel length. Unlike the geological soil report, this
installation demonstrated the existence of a serious rock cavity in section C, rather than a slight one. The
client considered the situation an excusable delay. Nevertheless, the client calculations indicated that
only fifteen additional days were required to complete the related excavation. The contractor failed to
submit an accurate time estimate when the claim cause was introduced. Quantifying the damages caused
by the misleading geological soil report accurately, was only possible after the job was completed.

CON-118-4
 Table 1: As-Planned Vs. as-built Durations

Section (C) Dates

Schedule Total working days
Start End
As Planned August 22,2001 Jan 15 , 2002 96 working days
As built August 22, 2001 March 3, 2002 125 working days
Difference 29 days

Introducing unforeseen situations to a construction project (e.g. Change Order) may cause unclearly
defined delay causes in additional to the direct time related delays. Vague delays are usually considered
to be productivity related delays that is hard to illustrate and verify. Both delays are referred to as Impact
delays (Moselhi et al., 1991). In this paper simulation will be employed to verify and even predict the
impact delay. In conjunction with simulation, Measured Mile Method was used to demonstrate how
productivity can be influenced by unforeseen events.

5 Development of Simulation Models

The claim described earlier consists of two main components: (1) As-planned tunneling process. (2)
Impacted tunneling process. EZstrobe software was utilized to construct a discrete event simulation
model for the impacted tunneling process. Constructing the required model was by two phases: (1)
Constructing as-planned model to represents the base line of the project. (2) Adjusting the as-planned
model to introduce variations (i.e. impacted model). The models were based on the tunneling process
shown in Figure 2. Construction processes employed in the models were extracted from project
documentation; missing information such as probability distributions, were adopted from similar tunneling
projects studied by Lin et al., 2009

The as-planned model was established by applying the project’s deterministic construction processes
durations. It was activated to simulate the excavation of 625 lm for 100 trials. This length represents the
impacted section of the tunnel. Table 2 illustrates productivity rate as per Ezstrobe simulation and the
original contractual production rates as anticipated during the projects planning phase. As-planned model
was primarily constructed to be used as the basis of the impacted model, which is the main focus of this
paper As-planned model was validated by comparing it to the original as-planed schedule as
demonstrated in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison Between Contractual and Simulation Model Production Rates

AS PLANNED
Items Contractual (EZstrobe) deterministic durations
Av. Time for a complete cycle (min) 960 949
Av. Total excavation duration (days) 96 95
Av. Production rate m/hour. 0.407 0.411

Figure 2 shows the impacted Ezstrobe Model. This model was constructed by adding the delay sources,
represented by additional or modified processes. Impacted processes are highlighted in Figure 2. In order
to simulate the project realistically, the deterministic processes durations were replaced by probability
distribution functions. Statistical credibility and discrete event simulation were combined into one model to
improve productivity measures accuracy. The intention was counting for unclearly tangible factors such
as productivity loss and workers efficiency in the proposed model.

CON-118-5
 Impacted - two shift day simulation cycle

PosMachi MuckingE
Jumbo BlastingEq
ne q
1 1
1 >0 , 1 1 1
>0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1

Drilling BlastingVent Muckingout Invistigation*

Positioning 1 Ready1 >0 , 1 Soildifaction 1 Ready2 >0 , 1 1 Ready3 >0 , 1 Implementation* 1 Ready4
Triangular[40,50, Triangular[55,60, Triangular[90,120, Triangular[45,60,
10 60 Triangular[25,30,35
65] 95] 150] 75]
]
>0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1

Crew Crew1
1 1

>0 , 1

Crew4
1
Wiremesh >0 , 1 1
ShotEq1 ShotEq2
Eq
1 1
1 Assambely** Installation** Correction**
>0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 Ready7 >0 , 1 SteelRibG** 1
Triangular[14,2 ScaledBeta[30,5 ScaledBeta[20,6
10
P:0.98 6,34] 0,40,6] 0,50,5]
ShotSealing ShotSide InsWiremesh
1 Ready5 >0 , 1 1 Ready6 >0 , 1 1
ScaledBeta[10,25,18, Triangular[15,20, ScaledBeta[1
>0 , 1 5.2] 35] 0,22,14,3.3] P:0.02 1 Ready8
Assambely1 Installation1 Correction1
>0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 SteelRibG1
Ready77 >0 , 1 7
Triangular[7,13 ScaledBeta[17,2 ScaledBeta[10,3
,17] 8,21,4] 0,24,2.5]
Crew2 Crew3 1
>0 , 1
1 1
Crew44
1

>0 , 1

Material2 Crew6
1 1

>0 , 1 ShotEq3 ShotEq4 ShotEq5 1 >0 , 1 Bolts

1 1 1 1
>0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1

ReadyToS
tart Shotcrete15cm wiremesh2nd Shotc15cm2nd Soildifaction Bolting
1 Ready9 >0 , 1 1 Ready10 >0 , 1 ScaledBeta[25,45, 1 Ready11 >0 , 1
ScaledBeta[25,45, ScaledBeta[10,25, 1 Triangular[100,
25,6] 14,3.3] 23,6] 10 160,255]

>0 , 1 1
>0 , 1 1

Crew5 Equipmen
1 t6
1
1

Crew7
Loader 1
1 >0 , 1 1
>0 , 1 1

Grouting** InvertExc Wiremesh3 Shotcrete

Ready12 >0 , 1 1 Ready13 >0 , 1 1 Ready14 >0 , 1 1 Ready15 >0 , 1 Curing 1 Ready16
Triangular[50,100, ScaledBeta[55,9 Triangular[15,1 ScaledBeta[20,
60
125] 5,75,12.5] 7,27] 40,33,6.8]

>0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1

Material Trucks Wiremesh Equipmen

1 1 2 t7
1 1

>0 , 1

Crew8
1 Output
Cycles
Equipment Parameter:
TL*TR
8 1 TL Tunel Length 625
>0 , 1 1 >=L , L L Length of cycle (m) 6.51
>0 , 1 1 TR Number of Trials(m) 100

L Start Result:
DirtRefill ExtServi
1 Ready17 >0 , 1 1 More >0 , 1 0.00000001
ScaledBeta[25, Triangular[23,30,3 TMIN Av.l Time to finish one cycle (min) SimTime/(NC*TR)
50,33,7.4] 8] 1 THR Av.l Time to finish one cycle (hr) TMIN/60
TDAY Time to finish tunnel length (Days) ((SimTime/60)/16)/TR
>0 , 1 1 >0 , 1 1 NC Number of cycles TL/L
OUT Output Excavation in (m) Output.CurCount/TR
Equipment
PRO Production m/hr Output.CurCount/(SimTime/60)
Soil 9
1 1
1

Figure 2: Impacted EZstrobe Model.

* Additional processes. ** Modified processes

CON-118-6
The impacted stochastic simulation model was activated to excavate the disputed portion of the tunnel
(625 m) for 100 trials. To establish good basis of comparison, the impacted duration was calculated
deterministically in a convention manner. Table 3 shows the production rates as per Ezstrobe model,
deterministically, and as-built (actual).

Table 3: (Impacted event) - Comparison between as-built, deterministic and stochastic production rates
IMPACTED
Items As Built Deterministic Stochastic (Ezstrobe)
Av. Time for a complete cycle (min) 1250 1147 1261.8
Av. Total excavation duration (days) 125 114.7 126.8
Av. Production rate m/hour. 0.312 0.340 0.308

The simulated model showed an accuracy of +1.44%. Deterministic method showed an accuracy of -
8.24%.

6 Implementation of the Developed Models to Case Study

Recovering Loss of productivity claims may be considered as one of the most challenging types of claim.
Although practitioners agree on the theory of loss of productivity, it is very difficult to reach an agreement
on this issue either during the course of the project, or through meditation to litigation phases (Long &
Carter, 2012). Several techniques are available for determining cumulative impact costs due to loss of
productivity, but are not limited to: Total Cost Method, Modified Total Cost Method, and Measured Mile
Method. Among the above-mentioned techniques, Measured Mile Method is considered the most
accurate one by owners, contractors, and court. Since this method uses the actual data of contractor’s
performance, it brings more creditability to its calculation. Utilizing this technique may increase the
contractor’s chance of verifying loss of productivity claims. This method requires comprehensive cost
reports, utilized man-hours, and installed quantity to implement the calculation. Before utilizing measure
mile method, two criteria should be met (Long & Carter, 2012):

• Loss of productivity is caused by the owner and contractor does not contribute to this situation.
• Contractor suffers from cost and time overrun due to loss of productivity

The two main drawbacks of this method are :( 1) the reliance on excellent project cost, man- hours and
performance documentation and reporting. Unfortunately, many projects may not have such advanced
documentation system. (2) This method can only be used when the project is completed. However,
contractors usually calculate delay cost prior to project completion. Submitting early realistic delay costs
to the client will minimize claims and helps in early resolutions of resulting disputes. Furthermore, it is
difficult to utilize this method for the following reasons

• Difficulty to establish un-impacted period of work

• Difficulty to distinguish contractor’s performance problem in impacted period of work from client-
caused events.

Table 4 and Figure 3 demonstrate the application of Measured Mile Method for the claim case-study. It is
conspicuous that productivity rates did not recover to its original status when the effect of delay is omitted.
Moreover, productivity rate before problematic period started is higher than as-planned rates. The
simulation model discussed in section two demonstrated a very similar result to Measured Mile Method.
However, such model can be constructed prior the entire completion of the project. Furthermore,
simulation doesn’t require comprehensive cost reports; still it requires historical data of similar projects
that are usually available at the contractor’s database.

CON-118-7
 Table 4: Productivity analyses using Measured Mile Method (Tunnel Excavation Section C)
Working labour cost
Weekly labour Working Hours Performed
Weeks Dates Days per ($) per (m)
cost ($) per week Work (m)
week
A B C D=C/16.5* E F G=C/F
1 Aug 22-26 $29,620 1795.2 5 34 $871
2 Aug 29-Sep2 $29,510 1788.5 5 35 $843
3 Sep 6- 9 $22,512 1364.4 4 41 $549
4 Sep12-16 $29,298 1775.6 5 35 $837
5 Sep 19 -23 $28,508 1727.8 5 33 $864
6** Nov 14 - 18 $31,420 1904.2 5 9 $3,491
7** Nov 21- 25 $28,612 1734.1 5 8 $3,577
8** Nov 28- Dec 2 $28,608 1733.8 5 23 $1,244
9** Dec 5 -9 $28,503 1727.5 5 12 $2,375
10** Dec 12 - 16 $30,319 1837.5 5 10 $3,032
11** Dec 19 - 23 $29,512 1788.6 5 16 $1,845
12** Jan 9 - 13 $30,303 1836.5 5 19 $1,595
13** Jan 16-20 $29,498 1787.8 5 15 $1,967
14 Sep 26- 30 $26,476 1604.6 5 20 $1,324
15 Oct 3-7 $29,210 1770.3 5 27 $1,082
16 Oct 11- 14 $27,810 1685.5 5 28 $993
17 Oct 17 -21 $22,810 1382.4 4 29 $780
18 Oct 24 -28 $26,504 1606.3 5 26 $1,019
19 Oct 31- Nov 4 $28,512 1728.0 5 31 $920
20 Nov 7 -11 $29,202 1769.8 5 27 $1,082
21 Jan 23-27 $29,499 1787.8 5 23 $1,283
22 Jan 30 -Feb 3 $28,613 1734.1 5 24 $1,192
23 Feb 6 - 10 $28,293 1714.7 5 31 $913
24 Feb 13- 17 $28,721 1740.7 5 29 $990
25 Feb 21 -24 $28,912 1752.2 5 30 $964
26 Feb 26- Mar 3 $11,302 685.0 2 10 $1,130
Total - $722,087 46,126 125 625 -
* $ 16.5 is the average labour cost. ** Problematic weeks

Productivity rates were analyzed throughout all the related excavation period as illustrated in Table 5.
Column A describes the excavation phase at the beginning of the project, where no rock cavity was
found. Average productivity at that point was in its highest levels. Column B indicates the most
problematic part of the tunnel, where unanticipated rock cavities were found mostly. During this phase
average productivity rates dropped to its lowest levels. Column C illustrates the average productivity
levels after the surprise was contained. Even though extra ripping was required in some locations during
period D, the productivity was not as low as in period B; still productivity rate did not return to its original
levels as in period A. Column D shows loss of productivity, which is the average productivity of period A
and C (Semi-normal period) subtracted out from the average productivity of period B (problematic period).
Column E is the average productivity rates for all the related period (26 weeks or 125 working days).
Period E is simply the as-built tunneling productivity rate for the disputed portion of the project. Finally,
column F shows the productivity rate generated by the stochastic simulation model. This demonstrates
the accuracy of the model when it is compared to actual productivity rates shown in column E.

CON-118-8
 Table 5: Summary of productivity analysis using Measured Mile Method & Simulation

Measured Mile Method – Average Productivity Rates Simulation

Max Low Medium Loss Total
Total
productivity productivity productivity of Period
(125 days,
Period
Period period period Productivity (128 days,
(24 days, 178 (40 days,112 m) (61 days,335 m) 625 m)
625 m)
m) (B) (C) (D) (E)
(F)
(A)
(m/hr) ($/hr) (m/hr) ($/hr) (m/hr) ($/hr) (m/hr) ($/hr) (m/hr) ($/hr) (m/hr) ($/hr)
0.464 $783 0.175 $2,114 0.344 $1,032 -0.202 -$946 0.313 $1,155 0.308 $1,234

It’s important to note that Simulation Method is not a replacement for Measured Mile Method. Both
methods can be utilized simultaneously to illustrate claim analysis & productivity measures. More
importantly, the uniqueness of each claim case drives the selection of the optimum method to be used.
Factors such as type of construction, available data, and arbitration characteristics may govern the
decision making process.

Section C Heading Productivity

Problematic period Semi-normal period

Figure 3: Illustration of productivity rates during the excavation period.

In addition to simulation evident accuracy, it is an excellent tool to visualize complicated construction

activities. This feature may be mainly beneficial when claims are explained to non-construction related
stakeholders. On the other hand, Measured Mile Method can be hard to comprehend, because it requires
a full understanding of the project’s cost reports, man-hours, and accomplished quantities. The graphical
capability of simulation and modeling software are constantly improving to enable a more realistic
visualization of impacted events.

The constructed model capability is not limited to its stochastic features and statistical reliability. By
adjusting the model, “What-If” scenarios can be presented and analysed. This can be utilized widely in
assessment of different claim scenarios. For instance using deterministic durations in the same model will
give similar results to the client’s point of view. This is mainly because the loss of productivity was not
represented in such a model.

7 Conclusion

Using simulation is useful in analyzing different aspects of construction processes prior and following
commencing in construction activities. Simulation has been utilised for: resource allocation, scheduling,
site planning, decision making, equipment selection and productivity calculations (Halpin & Martinez,
1999). Nevertheless, simulation potentials have not been utilized completely in claim analysis, claim
avoidance and disputes resolution.

Simulation can assist in establishing a realistic productivity rates during the planning phase.
Consequently, cost estimating and scheduling accuracy would improve significantly. Additionally,

CON-118-9
 simulating unexpected construction events can be beneficial in predicting required time extension and
consequent costs. Knowing such information in early stages during construction can considerably avert
construction claims. Simulation utilizes statistical data in mimicking construction processes realistically.
This could be particularly helpful when schedule, cost and manpower information is insufficient.

Presenting construction disputes has been a constant challenge for claimant and defendant. Simulation
supports visualizing inter-dependency between complex construction processes; it can also assist in
visualizing the impact of variations to the project’s initial plan. Cause and effect illustration procedure can
be improved, especially for personals not directly related to construction activities. Simulation can be
used concurrent with Measure Mile Method to quantify the loss of productivity impacts. More clarification
in quantifying the loss of productivity damages may be achieved by utilizing construction simulation
modeling techniques.

References

AbouRizk, S. H. (1992). State of the art in construction simulation. 1992 Winter Simulation Conference
(pp. 1271-1277). New York: 1992 Winter Simulation Conference.
AbouRizk, S. M., and Dozzi, S. P. 1993. Application of computer simulation in resolving construction
disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119 (2), 355-373.
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., Tribaldos, E., and Harris, F. 1995. Computer aided construction delay analysis
and claims preparation. Construction Management and Economics, 13 (4), 335-352.
Baram, G. E. (1994). Integrity and Credibility in Construction Dispute Resolution-Documenting and
Presenting the Facts. Cost Engineering, 36 (4), 27-33.
Bubbers, G., and Christian, J. (1992). Hypertext and Claim Analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 118 (4), 716-730.
Diekmann, J. E., and Kim, M. P. (1992). Superchange: Expert system for analysis of changes claims.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118 (2), 399-411
Halpin, D., & Martinez, L.-H. (1999). Real world applications of construction process simulation. Winter
simulation conference 1999 (pp. 956-962). Phoenix: Winter simulation conference.
Hammad, M. M. (2002). Managing project documents using virtual web centers. Annual Conference of
the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., and Vandenberg, P. J. (1999). The Impact of Change Orders on Mechanical
Construction Labour Efficiency. Construction Management and Economics, 17 (6), 721-730.
Keane, P. J., Caletka, A. F., and Ebooks Corporation. 2008. Delay analysis in Construction Contracts.
Wiley Online Library.
Levin, P. (1998). Construction Contract Claims, Changes and Dispute Resolution. Reston, VA: ASCE
Press.
Lin, C.-t., Hsiao, W.-t., Cheng, T.-m., & Wu, H.-t. (2009). Simulation of NATM Tunneling Construction in
Gravel Formation– Lessons Learned from Pakuashan Highway Tunnel Project in Taiwan. ASCE
GeoHunan International Conference 2009 (pp. 194-202). Changsha: American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE).
Minkarah, I., and Ahmad, I. 1989. Expert Systems as Construction Management Tools. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 5 (2), 155-163.
Moselhi, O., Leonard, C., and Fazio, P. (1991). Impact of Change Orders on Construction Productivity.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 18 (3), 484-492.
Ren, Z., Anumba, C., and Ugwu, O. (2001). Construction Claims Management: Towards an agent‐based
Approach. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 8 (3), 185-197.
Richard J. Long, P.E. and Rod C. Carter, CCE. 2012. Cumulative impact claims. 10029 Whistling Elk
Drive, Littleton, CO, USA: Long International, Inc.
Touran, A., & Asai, T. (1987). Simulation of Tunneling Operations. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 113 (4), 554-568.

CON-118-10

View publication stats