SIMULATION OF CONCRETE BATCH PLANT PRODUCTION By Tarek M. Zayed,' Student Member, ASCE, and Daniel Halpin, Member, ASCE ABSTRACT: The decision-making process is a very essential part of any construction operation, Simulation cean be used as a tool 10 assist construction managers in making informed decisions. In this paper, simulation is applied to concrete batching operations 10 analyze alternative solutions and resource management. Data are collected to define activity durations for the plant. A simulation model is constructed for the plant using the MicroCYCLONE simulation system, Based on sensitivity analysis, management tools are constructed 10 help the decision maker. These tools are a time-cos-quantity chart, a feasible region analysis, and a contour lines chart, Time-cost-quantity and contour Fines charts are used for determining prosuction time, production cost, and resources for a required distance from the plant. The feasible region chart is used for determining the range Of alternative solutions that can be taken to minimize production time and cost of the avai according to the required transportation distance. INTRODUCTION A model is @ representation of a real-world situation and provides a framework within which a given system can be investigated and analyzed. Models contain and reflect data that, when interpreted according to certain rules or conve tions, provide information that supports the decision-makir process. The precision with which these models reflect the real world varies widely. Abstract or conceptual models depend on a set of modeling and interpretive rules. Scheduling networks and bar charts have their own individual modeling and inter- pretive rules. Schematic models are representations that por- tray a physical situation (e.g., a map) so that a representational modeling or perception of the real-world situation is achieved Construction drawings are an excellent example of a schemat model. Models of various types are at the heart of problem solving. Due to the complex interaction among units on the construc tion job site and in the construction environment, dynamic systems modeling is required. Mathematical models (e.z.. queuing systems) can be applied to a limited number of special cases, In construction, output from one operation tends to be the input to the following operation, This leads to chains of ‘work tasks as well as situations in which many units are de layed at processors pending arrival of a required resource Such chained or linked situations are too complex to be mod- eled using classical queuing models. Simulation techniques of- fer the only general methodology that affords a means of mod- cling such situations. Simulation techniques can be applied to the modeling of concrete batch plant operations to study different combinations of resources. MicroCYCLONE modeling and programming techniques can be used to simulate this process. The clements of MicroCYCLONE, originally developed by Halpin in 1973, are used to model and simulate concrete batch plant opera~ tions. The MicroCYCLONE elements used for construction ‘modeling are shown in Fig. | (Halpin 1992). MicroCYCLONE isa simple and powerful tool for construction process plan- ning, as demonstrated by many researchers (Liu and Toanou 1992; MeCahill and Bemnold 1993; Huang et al. 1994), "PRD Candidate, Div. of Const. Engrg. and Mgmnt, School of Civ, Engrg. Pordue Uni, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1294, ‘Head of Div. of Const. Engrg. and Mgmt. School of Civ. Engrg Pardue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907-1294 ‘Note Discussion open untt September 1, 2001.To extend the closing date one month, a writen request must be filed with the ASCE Manager fof Journals. The manuseript for this paper was submited for review and possible publication on May 11, 1999; revised July 10, 2000. This paper part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ol. 127, No, 2, March/April, 2001, ASCE, ISSN 0733-963401/0002 (0132-0141/98.00 + $50 per page. Paper No. 20934 ble plant resources, STUDY OBJECTIVES ‘This paper develops a simulation approach for the study of concrete batch-plant operations. The results of the study pro- vide a means of predicting systems production and defining ‘optimum supply areas around a conerete batch plant. The op- imum areas support efficient resource allocation with mini ium duration and cost for different distances. ‘The subobjectives of this study are as follows: 1. Study of each component of the plant-truck-pump cycles. 2. Development of a MicroCYCLONE model for these pro- 3. Data collection for the simulation, A simulation is de- signed to: calculate the optimum number of trucks cor- responding to the various distances; determine the opti- ‘mum supply areas around the batch plant; and develop decision-making tools for conerete batch plant manage- ‘ment. The optimum resource combination that minimizes cost per unit is determined, MODEL BUILDING To establish a decision-making framework, a batch-plant transit mix delivery operation, located in the Lafayette, Indi- ana, was studied. The obverved facility consisted of storage bins for sand and gravel, a hopper tower, two belt conveyors, ‘ovo cement silos, and a discharge unit. This facility serves an area of approximately 15 mi (24 km) radius. The production capacity of the plant was rated as approximately 40 cu yd/h 04 mi. Fig, 2 shows the flow diagram for the concrete batch plant and the transit mixer cycles. The material is withdrawn from the storage area to fill the batch hopper through conveyor belt 1. There is a scale for measuring the aggregate weight in the hopper tower before discharging to the transit mixer through conveyor belt 2 MODEL DESCRIPTION ‘The model developed consists of several cycles for the fol lowing resources, as indicated in Fig. 3: 1. Conveyor belt 1 transports the ageregates from the stor- age area to the storage hopper. It has three different work tasks, namely—waiting for the aggregates, transporting the aggregates, and maintenance A hopper store the different types of aggregates. It re- ceived the aggregates from conveyor belt I and stores them for feeding to conveyor belt 2. After feeding con- ‘it waits for conveyor belt | to provide re- 1182 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2001Storage Aree 3. Conveyor belt 2 transports the aggregates from the hop- It waits for the truck mixer. Fol- ig, maintenance is done 7% of the time. After feeding the truck mixer, it waits for the hop- per to the truck Towing. truck los Name ‘Symbol |Combination (COMB) lactiny, Function ‘This element i etways preceded by Queve Nodes. [tore t can commence, units must be avaiable at each ef he preceding Guoue Nodes If units are avalable, they Jae combined and processed through the act. If units lace avaiable at sore but nt al of te preceding Queve INodes, these unts are delayed unt te conation for combination is met. Normal Activity [This sand aciviy sar tothe COMET. However, units arving at tis element begin processing immediatly and are not delayed. ‘Queue Node Iihis element precedes al CONT acuiies and piowdes 8 locaton at which uns are delayed pending combination [Delay statistics are measured at this element [fis rsated int the modal to perform spesal uncon |such a8 counting, consotcation, marking, and satisic lcoacton ‘Accumulator Its uses to define the numberof mes of the system levees. are Q se ae Indicates te logical sucture othe model and aresian lr entity tow. FIG. 1. Basic CYCLONE Modeling Elements Hopper retort Rona |comeyor [oe lan: ‘ransenbr “rane xr Trane mie ican peo | FIG. 2, Flow Diagram for Concrete Batch Plant and Transit Mixer Cycles per to be available fr transports the conerete from the plant nt sites. To load the truck mixer, cement, aggregates, water, admixtures, and conveyor belt 2 should be available, After the truck mixer is loaded, it to the site where there is 3 15% probability JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2001 / 1331. Cement Available 3. Hopper Empty 4. Feed Hopper 12, Truck Maintenance (2) 14, Adminture Available 24, Water Available 27. Load Available 5. Hopper Occupied 6. Conveyer Available eee 7. Maintenance 8. Dummy One 29, Transport Load 9. Dummy Two 31. Lond Truck 10, Maintenance 33. Travel to Site 3, ‘Truck Mixer ‘Hopper a -O rT Pame = ca 35} ~Qf 38} * i (39) =. : & 4 Ura “e- 43, Truck Available Under Plant 45. Truck Available 46, Truck Departure 47. Pump Remaining Conerete 34, Truck Waiting 35, Move Truck to Pump 36. Space Available 137 Tauck Resdy to Unload 38, Unload Truck into Purp 39, Pump Available 40, Truck Returning to Pamp 49. Crew Available 50. Spread de Finish Concrete 60. Counter S1.End 41. Plant Available 42, Truck Moving to Plant FIG. 3. MicroCYCLONE Schematic Model for Concrete Batching Plant tenance will be performed while waiting for the pump. To deliver the concrete to the pump, a truck mixer and 4 space should be available beside the pump. After un- loading, the truck mixer retums 10 the plant, There is a 5% probability that maintenance will be done prior to returning to the plant for reload 5. The pump receives the concrete from the truck and sup- plies it into the pump, which moves it to the placement sites. After this operation, the pump waits for other truck mixers to deliver concrete. 6. Laborers at the placement sites, where the concrete is, received from the pump, do the spreading operation. Af ter finishing the spreading operations, labor crews finish the concrete surface. DURATION OF SIMULATION ACTIVITIES ‘To build a management decision-making tool, 205 data sets were collected for the durations that are required for simulat- ing the truck cycle (ic. loading, unloading, hauling, returning, and delay times for truck mixer). In addition, transport times for sand and gravel and other concrete ingredients in the batch plant were also required. This set of data was collected by ‘observing operations over a period of 1 month (7-8 trips per day). Some of the trip data were eliminated, because they were ‘outliers that might bias the analysis, Loading and unloading times were calculated as beta dis- butions from the collected data by using a beta curve fitting, program, Hauling and returning times were calculated using regression analysis. Two regression models were constructed to calculate the hauling and returning times. The plant manager ‘estimated other times as deterministic or tiangular distribu- tions. Others were estimated as beta distributions using the VIBES Program (Abourizk 1991). ‘The haul time was calculated by conducting a regression analysis relating time and distance for various distances. The statistical analysis that establishes. the significance of this ‘model is shown in Appendix I. The regression model is: 0571 + 1.6006:distance(mi) Haul time(min) (Haul imeln nl = 0.0571 + LOwdistancetkm)) o ‘The return time was also calculated by regression between, retum time and distance, The statistical analysis supporting this model is shown in Appendix I. The model is: 0.019 + 1.4003 edistance(mi) Return time(min) (Return time{min] = 0.019 + O87Sudistancetkml) (2) ‘The two regression models that were used in this study had, been statistically checked to best fit the data. They were sta- tistically acceptable. At the beginning of the study, two tech- niques had been used to achieve b = 0 in the model. The first trial used regression models constrained to pass through the origin. The second trial used many data points that are (0,0) in the data set to force the regression Tine to b = 0. The results of both trials were statistically insignificant and didnot achieve the goal of b = 0. Since data collected from the si exhibited high variability, it was difficult to establish the ap- propriate percent significance. Therefore, the current models provided the statistical best fit for the observed data. In addi tion, the study does not take into consideration distances less than 3 mi (48 km) or more than 15 mi (24 km). Therefore these models are valid only for distances between 3 and 15, mi (4.8 and 24 km). COST OF CRITICAL MODEL RESOURCES Cost estimation for the resources that were critical to the ‘model was used to conduct sensitivity analysis by using dif- 194/ JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT/ MARCH/APRIL 2001TABLE 1, Resources Estimated Cost and Variation Range Costh Resource variation Rosouree (colar range Oh 2 @ Tracks 315000 ws Pumping spaces 3000 ig Conveyor bei $70.00 re Conveyor be S000 L ‘Sand and gravel horpe $3000 4 ferent resource combinations. The costs that are estimated are shown in Table 1 SIMULATION MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. Sensitivity analysis was done for the model by varying di ferent resources. The selected resources were those that had zero or close to zer0 percent idleness. This percent means that these resources are critical in a sense that they control the process. Therefore, changing them may affect the production and cost of the operation, The resources were vatied in the ‘model within the ranges shown in Table 1. Simulation features were as follows: L. Number of combinations is 232. 2. Hauling and returning distance was ineremented by 2 mi G.2 km) starting from 3 mi (48 km) to 15 mi (24 km). 3. Using the MicroCYCLONE program, 1,000 cycles were Simulation was done to analyze the batch-plant operation by investigating these resource combinations and distances in the model. This analysis is discussed in the following sections. SIMULATION RESULTS ANALYSIS As noted earlier, MicroCYCLONE was used to simulate the ‘mode! with various resource combinations. The resulting so- lutions were analyzed to eliminate infeasible ones. Sensitivity results were analyzed to eliminate the solutions that have high cost and low productivity. After this screening, the set of $0 Tutions that had the same trend in cost and productivity (e.g. low cost and high productivity) was selected as the feasible region of solutions. These results have been used to develop three charts, which are useful to decision makers in developing unit costs for their product (Le., batched concrete) as follows |. The productivity unit cost chart provides an indication of the range of feasible solutions at each distance (e.. 3-15 mi [48-24 km)). It establishes a zone of feasibil- ity, 2. The contour line chart relates cost and distance in terms of a map of the geographical area around the batch plant. 3, Two Time-Cost-Quantity (TCQ) charts relate lowest cost and best solutions to production levels at each distance. ‘They are helpful in comparing lowest-cost solutions with best solutions, The lowest-cost solution may require too ‘much time. The best solution gives the highest produc tivity for the lowest cost and therefore, optimizes both = ee — 600 i eo Peint’3 g #0 ao penton i = = oa a = ze ae = a =o = u — = Point 2 Et 36.45 21.30 2 Point 3 37.58 a 21.82 7 |—Points 46.01 7 23.69 Pee (=e Point 10 38.09 19.68 Cost and Productivity FIG. 4. Feasible Solutions Selection Chart JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2001 / 135Feasible Solutions ‘The criteria for eliminating infeasible solutions are shown graphically in Fig. 4. The cost and productivity combinations are drawn for different sensitivity analysis results of the sim- ulation model for 5 mi (8 km) distance. The points provide ‘examples of the resulting sensitivity analysis solutions. Each solution or point has a value for the productivity and a value for the cost per concrete cubic meter. The bold lines represent the connection between the cost value and the productivity value for the feasible solutions and the thin lines represent the connection between the cost value and the productivity value for the infeasible solutions (negative cost-productivity slope). For example, point 1 (solution 1) has a lower cost than point 2 (solution 2), where it has the same productivity. This means point 1 is more feasible than point 2. This also means that any solution Tine (with a negative slope) intersectiong the solution line representing point | could be logically eliminated, because it has a higher cost and lower productivity than point 1. There fore, points 2, 9, 10, and 11 are eliminated because of point 1, Point § is eliminated because of point 7, where it has the ‘same productivity and larger in cost. Point 3 is eliminated due to point 4, where they are equal in productivity, and point 4 less in cost. On the other hand, points 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 could not be eliminated, because the solution Lines do not intersect. In other words, each solution has a higher cost and a higher productivity than the previous one. Therefore, one point can- not eliminate the other. These solutions are feasible, and the best solution is one of them. The best solution may not be the lowest cost solution. The same procedure of selecting the fea sible solutions is followed for the sensitivity results for all the (5212) 6212) assigned distances. These sets of solutions, corresponding to different distances, are indicated in Fig. 5. Productivity Unit Cost Chart Based on the criteria explained in Fig. 4, the sets of feasible solutions according to their unit cost, productivity and differ ent combination of resources are drawn in Fig. 5. In this figure, the productivity is drawn against the unit cost for each feasible solution, According to productivity, the solutions for distances 3,5, 7, and 9 mi 8, 8, IL.2, and 144 km) are close to each other inside the sume set of solutions. They are not widely spread. The productivity set of solutions for distances 11, 13, and 15 mi (17.6, 20.8, and 24 km) are widely spread inside each set from approximately an average 20 10 30 units. Fig. 5 shows that the feasible solution lower limit represents the changes in distances. In other words, the longer the distance, the lower the productivity. The lower productivity limits change from 29.7 eu yh (22.6 m'h) 19.56 cu yd/n (14.9 ‘m’fh) for 3 mi (4,8 km) and 15 mi (24 KM) distances, respec vely. This decline in production is logical, given the longer distance of uavel. The ease is different in the upper limit for the feasible solutions. The upper-limit change in productivity isnot elear, the same a it isin the lower limit, This might be because the control element of the productivity is not the trucks but che batch plant itself. Therefore. increasing the num- ber of trucks wil not affect the productivity for different miles, because they are not the critical element in the process. Fig. 5 is only an indicator for the range of feasible solutions at each distance. It is very essential to select the best feasible solution out of this feasible solution range. The best feasible (6222) 212) 234 : 29 24 29 24 209 204 199 194 189 104 179 14 169 164 159 154 149 ity (Unit/h) Productivi 9228) I wary (Pred =15.81,Co} 2 sus sino sa 351 82 2 sa sas wns sa s20 333 £23 sas us wea wa sr sara ws wr sas 333 m8 sas Unit Cost ($) SB km) (BOK) (112 hn) HE (144k) —H= [17 6 ken) © (2D km) —+-(24.0 ken) —=Lower Limit —Upper Limit FIG. 5. Productivity— Unit Cost Chart 196/ JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT/ MARCH/APRIL 2001solution may not be the lowest cost solution, because the pro ductivity of the highest cost solution is approximately 1.5 times that of the lowest cost solution. ‘The numbers that are between two brackets represent the resource combination, The arrangement of these resources is ‘umber (#) of truck mixers, # of pumping spaces, # of con: veyor belt 1, and # of conveyor belt 2 from left to right, re- spectively. For example, if 3 truck mixers, 2 pump spaces, 1 conveyor belt 1, and 2 conveyor belts 2 are used, then, the productivity (univ/h) will be 29.72 for 3 mi (4.8 km) distance. ‘On the other hand, the cost will be $25.24/unit of production. It also indicates the feasibile region for each set of solutions according to different distances. This region is limited by the ‘minimum (lower) and maximum (upper) productivity limits for each set corresponding to various distances. This decision region or zone helps the decision maker to take his action according to productivity, unit cost, distance and the combi- nation of resources that is required to achieve this productivity, and cost. Use of Contour Lines Chart Fig. 6 indicates the position of the conerete batch plant un- der study within the West Lafayette and Lafayette, Indiana area. The contour lines represent the different distances around the batch plant. They represent the surrounding distances 3,5, 7,9, 11, 13, and 15 mi (48, 8, 11.2, 144, 17.6, 28.8, and 24 km) from the conerete batch plant within the West Lafayette and Lafayette area. The lowest cost solution is assigned t0 each contour line to indicate the productivity, unit cost, and combination of resources that is Feasible for each distance or contour line. Consequently, plant management is capable of deciding the price and time of providing concrete for these various distances, if they have any order within these regions. On the other hand, plant management could decide the opti- ‘mum set of resources that could produce the required amount Of conerete within these borders, Using Charts Consider a case in which a client at the intersection of State Road 26 and State Road $2 requests an amount of concrete. Management must decide the cost, the time, and the resources, needed to deliver the required amount of concrete. Based on the contour lines chart, this client will be 13 mi (20.8 km) from the plant. Fig. 5 indicates that the productivity will be 20.93 unitsIh where the unit cost will be $32.49/unit. It also indicates that the optimum resources required will be 3 truck mixers, 2 pump spaces, | conveyor belt 1, and I conveyor belt, 221i), Ifthe client needs higher productivity (more cu yd! hh [m’h), management can. use other resource combinations, such as (5222) to deliver the required concrete, This would increase the cost per cubic yard to $36.00 ($47.4/m’) since the (5222) combination is at the upper limit; it does, however increase productivity to about 30.25 cu ydih, (23 m'zh) an increase of almost 10 eu yd/h (7.6 mh). Therefore, higher prosluction levels can be provided if a premium is paid Based on the lowest cost solution (resource combination), a set of curves is constructed to measure the time and cost for Various concrete quantities to different distances. Fig. 7 indi cates this set of curves. In this figure, with a known conerete ‘quantity, the duration of concrete delivery can be determined. In addition, the unit cost and the total cost hased on diferent resource combinations for various distances can be deter- ‘mined. For instance, if 30 eu yd (22.8 m’) are to be delivered to a site 13 mi 20.8 km) away. the delivery time will be 1.43 hh This would support a production level of 30 cu yd/t.3 h 22.8 m/1.43 hy) oF 20.97 (say 21) cu yd (15.9 m'f). The lowest unit cost is $32.49 ($42.75/m') + overhead + profit per cubic yard (m’). The management will know that it needs 3 truck mixers, 2 pump spaces, | conveyor belt 1, and 1 con- veyor belt 2 t0 achieve this quantity at this delivery time. ‘The Best Set of Solutions. Jn many circumstances, the best solution may not be the minimum cost solution, because this is a multiobjective prob- Jem where productivity and cost both influence the decision. ‘Therefore, a method for deciding the best solution from a pro- JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2001 / 137,Bech. “(LAFAYETTE FIG. 6. Contour Lines for Distances, Production Times, and Plant Resources, 198/ JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 200111.00 1050 4000 - [Lowest Unit Cost: =. 4.8km: $33.21: (3212) 38 foam 8808 G22) oe am 557 56.321) |e time(s 3m) ta 4.akrn $40.51: (4212) Ne resis Eoeee im $5078 (321) 5 tn po am: $42 75 (321) etna 24m) | . @ Tine sim) Eis “2 tine(17 58m) 400 350 —-Tine20.84m) so —rine(24imy | 200 159 100 O80 000 (aa wa seo aoa eae | rea ese] wiz] Bos | Toe] trad] aT] 1292 1088 Tana TED ae Time(t tm) | 101 | 138 | 188 | 268 | 303 | 338 370/404 | as7 | a7 | 505 | S20 | S72 | 606 | 620 | 673 vor tate pat 0 [ses sei] ame [ez |asr [sas [sen [eoe [eas 676 710 tia [tga [190/220 |aar | a05 [aaa [aa ava | aar [aes [em [ert [610 |e | 606] 724 | 762 oo 197 [478 | 9/274 [aon [aaa a7 jan |aas | arn | 510 a7 [ear | 66 | 650 eae 153.470 [age 267/311 ase [aos [aos [amo sae arm [oan oor [7 | 7a8 [ou | eas aos «3 tai [as 2a7| sae 30r [aon [aro | 5an 79 [eat | oe | r17 |e are | 040 | 900/330 —teeaam [ras [zoe [ess san {ase jar aon [aii see [ers ees 710 700 8x7 [eae [ie 970 [v0ai ‘Quantity (m*) FIG. 7, Time-Cost-Quantity Chart Based in Lowest Cost Solution 700 a7 62 825 | 800 Serum t 52) 48k $8921: (8212) | $25 ‘8.0km: $36.24: (4212) 1 5% 24m: $3699: (4212) = 1 | fladin seo st wore) | E235 11 Biream sass: (5212) t > 400 20 ak: $46.17: (5212) —— A int E323 | Mes.onm: $47.74: (6212) = | Time aheny = 32 eTime(14.2km) 2 ees 278 [| etme. 64m) 335 pf] rec ot vez ” 30 { { 175 t —Tie24ien) 1.50 po 13 = f ie = oe eo eel 075 - i 1 88 een ase a wee | TeU Re] mF | BON Ra | TS aa | | ea TO [Le -Treteiny [or] 428 [res | ae EL IECIEC 370 [404 aa? [ari | 08 | sat [672 | 608 | 29 [otinetim) [097] 420) 461 | tor age! 266/201 |a29 ass) a7) 420 |4s2 | 44 | 6x7 | sao | sat | 61 [Ferencrt anes [090 | 132 | sa | 190 | 230 | 2s | 2.08 | ze | 3.2 | 395 | 420 | 40s | 454 ‘527 | 560 | 593 | 626 |e Tireeany 108 [137 [474/308 fa9/ a7 [aaa [aed are| ai eat [are |ar0 [Gar | ome ote | ee [=e—Trnet7. thm 098 | 194 | 109, zor | 2ee | 320 386 | 392 «24 | 457 | 490 | 522 | 959 | sar | 629 tin [aor ase [zer 3 ae aah [1 [43a 301 [a8 [on [oe |e, Tau) zor[ za] ave] air] see aan [ais eer [ase sie] oss oar z2| ar Quantity (m°) FIG. 6. Time-Cost-Guantity Chart Based on Best Solution JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCHIAPRIL.2001 / 199TABLE 3._Decision Index Calculation for Simulation Model Goalie? Production (mm) at distances pSraten Combination | m’) | (4B km) | (8.0m) | (11-2Km) | (144 km) | (17.6km) | @O.8KM) | OK | — index a) 2) @) 4) © ©) @ © @ (10) 2 3821 2 7.0000) ma 3429 B04 rors en 3797 2370 0762 2212 asst aa | 11989 5212 35005 2139 | 0000 36.20 2082 1012s 3824 2354 991s 3080 261 | 10288 443 23.69 rat 3759 loos ‘0000 aso2 | 2030 Lous 3899 2308 x98 dos 2334 oss 4438 23.66 6.9955, 4051 221 1.0000 4459 2354 ro3ss 4624 2358 Lo7se 3079 1709 0000 4179 1723 Loa 32.36 2125 ose 3.68 2132 45.09 2329 651 2339 275 isa 4478 20.10 46.7 2274 4733 2303 45.70 1.0000 4699 0.8663 4758 ost 4774 0.7068 4879 om ‘Note: Best soluions opimizing bod cost and time (index method) are shown in boldface ip TABLE 4. Best Solutions for Different Distances escource combination” Distance in miles (kr) o 2 7azi2y 30 km) (4212) 7UL2 km) (5212) 11.076 km) 13208 km) 15240 kim) (GRID) means: 4 track en 2 pumping ly. 4. If the decision index is below one for more than one solution, select the solution of the lowest index value. ‘Table 3 explains this operation for our simulation model, where the index for each solution is indicated in front of each case. The lowest cost Solution has an index of 1.0, Ifthe so- lution index is greater than 1.0, then this solution is not more feasible than the lowest cost solution. According to Table 3. the best solutions for distances 3 and 9 mi (48 and 14.4 km) are the lowest cost solutions. At other distances, the best so- lution isnot the lowest cost solution, since by increasing cost slightly, the productivity grows to be on average 1.5 times, more than the lowest cost solution. Therefore, this index iden- tifies the best solution among the feasible solutions or feasible region, Based on this index, the best solution isthe lowest cost selution for 3 and 9 mii (48 and 14.4 km) where the resource combinations are (3212) and (4212), respectively. The best Solutions for the other distances are shown in Table 4. ‘The TCQ chart in Fig. 8 shows the best solutions based on the index approach. This helps both the contractor and batch plant manager to evaluate the best overall solution considering time and cost. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND FUTURE WORK ‘This paper has discussed the role of simulation as a tool for decision making and resource management. The concrete batch plant example is presented as a case study to demon- sirate how simulation can be of benefit. Simulation sensitivity analysis is used {0 generate useful decision-making tools for plant operation. The TCQ and contour lines charts are used for establishing production time, production cost, and required resources for a required distance from the plant. The feasible n chart is used for deciding the range of alternative so- 18 available to minimize production time and cost of the available plant resources according to the required transport distance. ‘Common practice typically calculates the unit price for the concrete, based only on the mix design, Greater precision can be achieved by considering the haul distance in addition to the mix design when determining unit price. This study introduces, the idea of evaluating different distances to reflect the precise unit price. Consequently, the plant manager has the flexibility to determine his concrete unit price based on mix design and different distances. Simulation provides a flexible tool 10 eval- uate these options at a higher level of precision than is pres ently used, APPENDIX I. ‘The haul time was calculated by conducting a regression analysis relating time and distance for various distances: The rogression model REGRESSION MODELS ANALYSIS 140/ JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL 2001Haul Time(min) = 0.0571 + 1,6006distancetmi) (al Timefmin} 0571 + 1.0edistancefkm) Note: pushing the intercept to be zero resulted in an insignif- icant model. Statistical Anal ‘Test the linear relation 1. F-value = 259.06 with probability p = 0.0001. Then, 81 is acceptable at the 5% level of significance, and there is a linear relation between hauling time and distance. Relative variation 2. r-square = 0.9511 where, this is an indicator that the re- duction in variation is small ‘Visual or graphical tests 3, * Scatter plot indicates that the straight line is a good fit for the data ‘+ Normality assumption for the residual is achieved and approximately good. + Constancy assumption for the residual is approximately ‘00d. ‘+ Independence assumption for the residual is approxi- mately good. Adequacy of the model 4. The lack of fit (LOF) test is done for this data, where there are replications in the data. The probability of the LOF-test is p= 0.203, which indicates that the model is adequate for this data, ‘The return time was also calculated by regression between return time and distance: The model is Return time(min) = 0,019 + 1.4003 distance (mi) (Return timelmin] = ~ 0.019 + 0.87Sedistance (km) Note: pushing the intercept to be zero resulted in an insignif- icant model. Statistical Analysis: ‘Test the linear relation 1 F-value = 178.64 with probability p = 0.0001. Then, 1 is acceptable at 5% level of significance and there is a linear relation between hauling time and distance. Relative variation 2. esquare = 0.934 where, this is an indicator that the reduc tion in variation is small Visual or graphical tests 3. + Scatter plot indicates that the straight Tine is a good fit for the data ‘+ Normality assumption for the residual is achieved and approximately good + Constancy assumption for the residual is approximately good. ‘+ Independence assumption for the residual is approxi- mately good. Adequacy of the model 4. LOF test is done for this data, where there are replic in the data, The probability of the LOF-test is p = 0.1876, which indicates that the model is adequate for this data APPENDIX Il, REFERENCES AbouRizk, S. M., Halpin, D. W., and Wilson, J. R (1991). “Visual in- {eractve fing of beta distsbutios,” J. Constr Engrs. and Mg ASCE, 117(4), 589-008. ASCE, (199), Standard practice for conerete for civil works structures. ASCE, New York, 57 ASTM, (1991). Ready mixed concrete, West Conshohocken, Pa Basham, K. (1996). "Cleaning out ftesh and hagdened conerete inside track miner dram." Concrete J M4), 236-22 Camillo J. (1996). “Contoling the flow oF tuck mixers.” Comerete J, 144d), 250-256, ‘Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau (CPMB). (1988). Concrete plant ‘operator's manual, el Ed, Publication No. 159, National Ready Mixed Concrete Assocation, Silver Spring, MeL, 4 Gaynor, R. D., and Mullarky, J. 1. (1975) Mixing concrete in @ ruck ‘niver, Publication No, 148, National Ready Mixed Conercte Associ tion, Silver Spring. Mal Gaynor, RD. (1998), Ready mised concrete, Publication No. 186, Na: tonal Ready Mixed Concrete Assocation, Silver Spring, Md alin, D. W.. and Riggs, L. . (1992). Planning and analysis of con ‘iruction operations, Wiley, New York Haney. J. (1985). Ready mixed concrete—Plant and truck mixer op ‘rations, Publication No. 172, National Ready Mixed Concrete Asso iver Spring, Ma, 10-13, sell (1085). Consiction equipment, Reston Publi ing, Reston, Va Laning, A. (1982). “Mobile volumetic mixers eliminate waste" J. Com: ‘rete Conste, 378) Mindess, Sand Young, JF. (1981). Conerer, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clits. NJ. 270. Mininger. RC. (1969). Study of ASTM lines on delivery time, Publica: tion No. 131, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring. Md, National Conerete Machinery Company. (1976). Conerete mobile hand: ‘ook, Il Assoiates Ine National Ready Mixed Concrete Associaton. (1995). Truck miverdriver's ‘manual, Publication No. 188, Silver Spring. Md, Orchard, D. F. (1979). Concrete Technology. 4h Ed, Applied Science, ‘Nol. 2 London, 425-420. Peurifoy, RI, Ledbetter, W. B., snd Schexnayder, C.J. (1996). Con ‘iruetion planing. equipment. and methods. Sth Bad, McGraw-Hill New York, 544, Strechlow, R. W. (1974), Concrete plant production, Concrete Plant Man ‘seruers Bureau, Ma, Strelow, K. W. (1974) Relating conerete plant production 1 equipment ‘election, Publication No. 14S, National Realy Mixed Concrete As ‘ciation, Silver Spring, Md, Swrehow, R. W. (1973). Conerete plant production, Publication No, 105, ‘National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring. Md, ‘Talend, D. (1997), “Front Mixer Training Reguies New and Old Stra egies.” J. Concrete Producer, 15(1), 21-25. Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau. (1996). Truck miter agitator and front discharge concrete carrier standards, TMMB. 10094, Silver Spring. Md. USS: Department ofthe Interior. (1975). Conerare manual, St Ed, Water Resoices Technical Publication, Litton, Colo, Zisser J. (1996). “Hydraulic Oveshaul: How to Avoid System Break owns.” Comerete J 119), 629 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / MARCH/APRIL2001 /141Copyright © 2002 EBSCO Publishing