Abstract
Although delays to non-critical activities within the float do not always affect the overall completion time of a project, they commonly cause disputes over the impact cost and apportionment resulting from the complexity of resource utilization in construction projects. Therefore, considerable attention has been focused on providing an effective and reliable method for analysing the effects of float loss. Several recent studies have proposed various methods; however, most of these methods are based on the assumption of a fixed duration for each activity or activity-based cost simulation. Few studies have considered the trade-off between time and costs and the integration of project resources. Using genetic algorithms, this study introduces a critical path method (CPM)-modified resource-integrated optimization model and successfully quantifies the impact of float loss on the total cost of the project. The results provide objective quantification for accurately evaluating the impact of within-float delays and facilitate the analysis of the impact of delay claims on cost and apportionment in construction projects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ahuja H (1984). Project Management Techniques in Planning and Controlling Construction Projects. Wiley: New York.
El-Rayes K and Jun DH (2009). Optimizing resource leveling in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135 (11): 1172–1180.
Feng C, Liu L and Burns SA (2000). Stochastic construction time-cost trade-off analysis. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 14 (2): 117–126.
de la Garza JM, Vorster MC and Parvin CM (1991). Total float traded as commodity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 117 (4): 716–727.
Goldberg DE (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley: New York.
Householder JL and Rutland HE (1990). Who owns float? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 116 (1): 130–133.
Holt B and Fu LM (1955). Rule generation from neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 8 (3): 54–63.
Holland JH (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI.
Hegazy T (1999a). Optimization of resource allocation and leveling using genetic algorithms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 125 (3): 167–175.
Hegazy T (1999b). Optimization of construction time-cost tradeoff analysis using genetic algorithms. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 26 (6): 685–697.
Kelley JE (1961). Critical-path planning and scheduling: Mathematical basis. Journal of Operational Research 9 (3): 296–320.
Kim K and de la Garza JM (2003). Phantom float. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 129 (5): 507–517.
Leu SS and Yang CH (1999). GA-based multi-criteria optimal model for construction scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 125 (6): 420–427.
Li H and Love PED (1997). Using improved genetic algorithms to facilitate time-cost optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 123 (3): 233–237.
Li H, Cao JN and Love PED (1999). Using machine learning and GA to solve time-cost trade-off problems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 125 (5): 347–353.
Reda R and Carr RI (1989). Time-cost trade off among related activities. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 115 (3): 475–486.
Sakka ZI and El-Sayegh SM (2007). Float consumption impact on cost and schedule in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 133 (2): 124–130.
Senouci AB and Eldin NN (2004). Use of genetic algorithms in resource scheduling of construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 130 (6): 869–877.
Xiong Y and Kuang Y (2008). Applying an ant colony optimization algorithm-based multiobjective approach for time-cost trade-off. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 134 (2): 153–156.
Zheng D, Ng ST and Kumaraswamy MM (2004). Applying a genetic algorithm-based multiobjective approach for time-cost optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 130 (2): 168–176.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported financially by the National Science Council in Taiwan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
AC= total activity cost of a project
a j = a positive constant for each resource j
DC=direct cost
d i = duration of activity i
dn i = the normal duration of activity i
dp i = the duration of activity i in the baseline schedule
E ijt = the efficiency of resource j of activity i on Day t
EF i = earliest finish time of activity i
EF k = earliest finish time of activity k that precedes activity i
ES i = earliest start time of activity i
ES k = earliest start time of activity k that succeeds activity i
ET i = end time of activity i
ET k = end time of activity k that precedes activity i
F= fitness value, the minimal ratio of TC over TC 0
FF i = free float of activity i
FL i = float consumption of activity i
HC= total resource handling cost of a project
IC= total indirect cost of a project
IDC= total idle cost of a project
IDQ jt = quantity of idle resource j on Day t
IT= impact time
K j = the ratio of mobilization/demobilization unit cost over the resource unit cost for resource j
LF i = latest finish time of activity i
LS i = latest start time of activity i
LS k =latest start time of activity k that succeeds activity i
MC=sum of total resource mobilization cost and demobilization cost
MC d = resource demobilization cost
MC m =resource mobilization cost
P g =parent population in generation g
PS i =immediate predecessor of activity i
Q ijt =the quantity of resource j used for activity i on Day t
Q ij(t−1)=the quantity of resource j used for activity i on Day (t−1)
Qn ij = the quantity of resource j used for activity i at the normal duration
q ijt = the daily quantity of resource j used for activity i with 100% efficiency at the duration d i on Day t
S i = shifting days of activity i
SS i = immediate successor of activity i
ST i = start time of activity i
STP i = start time of activity i at the baseline schedule
s= solution in GA module (s=1 to S)
T= total project duration
TC= total cost of the project
TC p = total cost of the project for the baseline schedule
TC 0= total cost of the project calculated with normal activity durations based on the early-start schedule
TF i =total float of activity i
U d =the daily cost rate for the indirect cost in $/day
U j = unit cost of resource j
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lo, W., Kuo, ME. Cost impact of float loss on a project with adjustable activity durations. J Oper Res Soc 64, 1147–1156 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.34
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.34