PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS IN TIME COST TRADE-OFF

ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

ABSTRACT

In project scheduling, the activity durations can often be reduced by dedicating additional
resources. Time/Cost Trade-off Problem considers the compromise between the total cost and
project duration. Due to its obvious practical relevance, this Time-Cost Trade-off Problem has
attracted the attention of many researchers over the last fifty years. The focus of the research
has been to explore the optimum schedule of activities having the minimum project cost for a
given target deadline. However, the real life construction projects may encounter a situation
where they need to be completed as early as possible using alternate appropriate resources,
including crew size, equipment, methods and technologies depending on the availability of
extra budget in addition to its normal cost. Thus further research is needed to explore an
optimum schedule of activities so as to minimize the project duration for a given specific
budget. In this work an efficient computer program using C++ in Linux environment has
been developed employing an open source solver of mixed linear integer programming for
the Time-Cost Trade-off Problem. The developed program is capable of handling both the
criteria i.e. (1) Given a specific target deadline the program generates optimum schedule of
activities so as to minimize the project cost, and (2) Given a specific budget the program
generates optimum schedule of activities so as to minimize the project duration. The program
has been validated through the published results in literature as also the manual calculations
by enumeration for very small hypothetical project. Various case studies have then been taken
to include optimum schedules i.e. schedule having minimum cost for all the possible
durations in the range between normal and crash duration of the project. The duration wise
optimum schedules i.e. schedule having shortest duration for different budget between the
normal and crash cost have also been worked out. The results on large-sized problem
instances have revealed the satisfactory behaviour of proposed algorithms. The usefulness of
this study would further enhance if implemented along with the constrained resource
scheduling. The work reported here might prove to be an important milestone in the direction
of the development of versatile project management software incorporating time cost trade
off in CPM schedule computations which at present is not available in any commercial
construction project management software.
1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1General
Since its introduction in the late 1950s, the Critical Path Method (CPM) has proven to be a
useful tool for planning and controlling construction projects. CPM enables project managers
to evaluate the early and late times at which activities can start and finish, to calculate activity
float (slack), to define critical activities, and to evaluate the impact of changes in duration and
logical relations on the overall project duration. Because of its benefits and the significant
advancements that have been made in both computer hardware and scheduling software, the
use of the CPM and its variation, the precedence diagram method (PDM), in all industries,
including construction, has dramatically increased in the last three decades (Liberatore et al.,
2001). In construction projects, CPM is very important because it enables the contractor to
determine when and how many resources are needed, vendors to determine when to deliver
materials, and subcontractors to determine when they can perform their work. However, CPM
has serious limitations that have yet to be overcome. The analytical capabilities and
computing efficiency of CPM also need to be enhanced in order to meet the changing
requirements of the construction industry (Ahuja and Thiruvengadam, 2004).
Construction involves unique environments, challenges, and project management needs, not
found in other industries. While the industry includes many large companies, statistics
indicate that more than two-thirds of construction firms have fewer than five employees
(Halpin and Woodhead, 1998). The majority of these small firms are specialist subcontractors
working with a general contractor. This category of firms experiences the highest level of
business failures, as reported in a survey by (Russell and Radtke, 1991). The survey
identified the factors that contribute to failure, including underbidding, insufficient cash flow,
external difficulties, and lack of experience in estimating and monitoring costs. These factors,
in essence, indicate lack of efficient project management, which is in part due to the
drawbacks associated with CPM, particularly the lack of direct mathematical formulation for
satisfying project constraints such as deadlines and resource limits. Despite the many
practical insights provided by professional organizations and commercial software, to many
construction professionals, particularly trades and small contractors, the use of CPM and
project management tools does not extend beyond creating a schedule with a neat appearance
in order to satisfy contract requirements (Baweja, 2006).
3

1.2Unrealistic Assumptions of CPM

Despite the long history and expanding use of CPM, the literature indicates that CPM has a
number of drawbacks that raise concerns about its use in the construction industry (Galloway,
2006). The reasons for the lack of faith in CPM, which also represent the motivation for this
dissertation, can be described as follows. In the planning stage before construction, the CPM
algorithm is based on two unrealistic assumptions: that the project deadline is not restricted
and that resources are unlimited. These drawbacks prevent the use of CPM for accurately
analysing project delays.
Many new algorithm techniques have been developed to enhance the usefulness of CPM
(Harris 1978). Among these algorithms and techniques, time-cost trade-off analysis has been
one of the most important enhancements for using CPM to plan and control construction
projects. In general, there is a certain relationship between time and cost to complete the
activities within a project. A contractor may choose different crew sizes, equipment, and
construction methods to complete the activities. These decisions will ultimately decide the
duration and cost of a project. Since there are hundreds or thousands of activities within a
project, it is almost impossible to enumerate all possible combinations to identify the best
decisions for completing a project in the shortest time and at the minimum cost.
Thus there is a need of a new approach for assisting construction planners in making timecost trade-off decisions. To this end this dissertation aims in applying linear integer
programming approach to resolve the various issues in time-cost relationship of a project.
This combination of linear and integer programming provides the efficiency and accuracy for
solving time-cost trade-off problems. However, the lengthy and error-prone process of
formulating linear and integer programming objective functions and constraints restrict this
approach to be used by construction project managers and thus needs to be replaced by a
computer code so that users can intuitively define time-cost and precedence relationships for
activities. The LP/IP hybrid open source Coin-or solver tool has been used in the developed
computer code in C++ to provide construction planners with a new and efficient means of
making good time-cost decisions.

1.3Aims and Objectives

The primary aim of this study is to develop a computer program to schedule project activities
in order to minimize the total duration of the project, subjected to both precedence and
financial constraints. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were targeted:

Develop a mathematical model to work out the schedule of construction projects for

an earlier deadline.
Modifying the above model to get project schedule considering financial constraints
To write a computer code for above mathematical model
To implement the code on cases study.

1.4Research Methodology
The objectives of the proposed study were achieved by searching the existing literature for
exploring a mathematical model which solves constrained schedules considering time cost
trade-off. For above following steps were implemented:

Carrying out a survey on the previous researches that are related to the different

approaches to TCT problems.

Based on above literature survey the selection of a simple to implement proper

approach and to apply it in the current study.

Developing a process of scheduling projects under a given finance-constraints or to

develop optimum schedule within assigned deadline.

Making verification and validation of the model, implementing case studies.
Comparing the results of the model with results of other approaches or techniques, i.e.
genetic algorithm etc.

1.5Dissertation Outline
The thesis includes seven chapters. A brief description of the chapters contents is presented
below:
Chapter one highlights the need for taking this work in the field of project management. The
aims and objectives of the research are described. At the end, the structure of the thesis is
presented.
Chapter two reviews the construction projects planning and scheduling definitions and
techniques.

Chapter three reviews the time cost trade off techniques, including classical and heuristic
search, especially the linear programming technique.
Chapter four describes the formulation for crashing of projects. This chapter ends with a
detailed procedure of solving time cost trade off (TCT) through open source Coin or Linear
Integer Programming Solver.
Chapter five details the implementation of the developed computer code for various cases
from literature in attaining optimum schedules for various targeted dead line as also in
deducing shortest possible duration schedule for a range of specified budget . Results of five
case studies applying explored model have been presented in the end of the chapter.
Summary and main conclusions of the research are given in chapter six.
The last chapter ends with recommendations for future research in the area of TCT.

CHAPTER 2
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PLANNING AND SCHEDULING
2.1Construction Project management
In construction industry, construction projects require knowledge of project and business
management as well as in-depth understanding of the construction process. Project
management is an objective-oriented process used throughout business and industry. The
management of projects incorporates methods to effectively coordinate and utilize project
resources for the accomplishment of one or more objectives. Project management is typically
carried out under different types of constrains, including time, labour, material, equipment,
cost, and performance of the end product. The planning, scheduling, evaluation, and control
of these constraints present distinctive management problems for getting the project
completed, (Jackson, 2004; Patrick, 2004).
A project management problem typically consists of planning and scheduling decisions,
(Goncalves et al, 2006). Planning can be thought of as determining what is going to be
done, how, where, and by whom. In scheduling, this information is needed in order to
determine when, (Hinze, 2008). By scheduling it is possible to find the right sequence to do
the jobs and right schedule, (Kamarainen, 2000).

2.2Projects planning and scheduling

Project is a sequence of unique, complex, and connected activities that are conducted in a
coordinated effort to accomplish one or more unique objectives, and must be completed by a
specific time, within budget, and according to specifications. It can be stated that a project is
a set of jobs, tasks, or activities that must be completed in order to achieve specific project
objectives, typically which are unique and nonrecurring, (Patrick, 2004; Wysocki, 2007).
In order to manage a construction project effectively, we must have a plan which includes
what is to be accomplished, the technology involved, the resources needed, and the expected
time for construction. A very crucial part of this plan is the time-based schedule which is so
important for all concerned. The goal of planning is to minimize resource expenditures while
satisfactorily completing a given task. Planning aims at producing an efficient use of
equipment, materials, and labour, and ensuring coordinated effort. (Steven, 1990;
Schexnayder, 2006; Wysocki, 2007).

2.3Construction network scheduling

Schedule is a time-based arrangement of activities planned to take place in order to efficiently
complete the project. It helps in coping with complexities, masses of data, and tight
deadlines, (Patrick, 2004; Kerzener, 2006).
Network scheduling is a method of scheduling activities by joining them in a series of
interconnected links which reflect relationships of activities as assigned by the planner. In
project management, decisions depend directly on quantity and quality of information and
indirectly on application method and technique used to schedule and control. Until now, the
time factor has played a huge rule in scheduling and has always been related to its logic
structure, (Steven, 1990; Franco et al, 2006).
2.3.1

Definitions

Activity: is a distinct task or work function where a particular worker or a crew of workers
completes a specific item of work within a prescribed time frame (Kerzener, 2006).
Network: A series of interconnected links with fixed logical relationships that provides
valuable information for planning, time studies, scheduling and resource management,
(Kerzener, 2006).
Schedule: A time-based arrangement of project activities, (Steven, 1990; Franco et al, 2006).
2.3.2

Advantages of network scheduling techniques

The advantages of the network scheduling as mentioned by (Kerzner, 2006) are:

They form the basis for all planning and predicting and help management decide how

to use its resources to achieve time and cost goals.

They provide visibility and enable management to control projects.
They help management evaluate alternatives by answering such questions as how
time delays will influence project completion, where slack exists between elements,

2.3.3

and what elements are crucial to meet the completion date.

They provide a basis for obtaining facts for decision-making.
They provide the basis structure for reporting information.
They reveal interdependencies of activities.
They identify the longest path or critical paths.
They aid in scheduling risk analysis.
Traditional scheduling techniques
8

The most common traditional scheduling techniques are:

Gantt or bar charts.

Activity on arrow diagram (AOA),
Activity on node diagram (AON),
Program evaluation and review technique (PERT),
Critical path method (CPM)

2.3.3.1

Gantt chart

A Gantt chart presented planned activities as stacked horizontal bands against a back ground
of dates (along horizontal axis) as shown in figure (2.1). It is a simple and concise graphical
picture for managing a project. It is also easy with a bar chart to compare planned production
against actual production, but it does not clearly show the detailed sequence of the activities,
and it does not show which activities are critical to the successful, timely completion of the
project.
Activity
1

work days
3

Site clearing
Dig trench
Assemble pipes
Install pipes
Backfills
Figure 2.1 Gantt chart Diagram

2.3.3.2

Activity on arrow diagram

In activity on arrow (AOA) diagram, activities are represented by arrows, and the start and
finish of those activities are represented by nodes with AOA diagrams as shown in figure
(2.2), activitys start and finish times are clearly depicted as separate events, making it a good
tool for showing activity sequence. However, the AOAs use of dummy activities is
confusing, and time is not shown graphically.

Figure 2.2 AOA Diagram

2.3.3.3

Activity on node diagram

The activity on node (AON) diagram represents activities as nodes and the sequence of
activities as arrows as shown in figure (2.3). The AON eliminates the need for dummy
activities and easy to learn. However, time and project progress are not shown graphically.
The time-scaled network shows graphically the activity starts and finishes as well as the order
of activities, but is awkward for large, complex projects.

Figure 2.3 AON Diagram

2.3.3.4

The matrix schedule

There are other methods that are employed to schedule and control the construction process.
One of such method is the matrix schedule. A matrix schedule is one in which spreadsheet is
used to show all of the activities on a particular project. This type of matrix approach is used
most often on housing projects.
2.3.3.5

The critical path method

The critical path method, or CPM, is a method developed in the 1950s that uses the network
modelling process to schedule projects. The critical path represents the sequence or path of
10

activities that takes the longest to complete. The length of the critical path or sum of all
critical activity durations is equal to the minimum project duration. The CPM can be applied
to those projects that can be divided into distinct activities with fixed durations and a welldefined sequence of work. However, its suitability has been widely criticized. (Sriprasert et
al, 2002) pointed the CPM major drawbacks as follows:

Inability to cope with non-precedence constraints In the real world, construction

possess various kinds of constraints ranging from physical constraints (i.e. topology,
space, safety, and environment), contract constraints (i.e. time, cost, quality, and
special agreement) to resources and information constraints (i.e. availability and
perfection). Unfortunately, CPM considers only time and precedence constraints
among activities. Its underlying network representation is proven to be inadequate to

represent and integrate more problems in construction.

Difficulty in plan evaluation and communication The CPM schedule is graphically
presented in either a form of Gantt chart (Bar chart with relationships) or a form of
precedence diagram. To evaluate and communicate the plan, project participants must
mentally associate this schedule information with the description of the physical
building (i.e. drawings and/or 3D project model) as well as other technical
information (i.e. specifications and method statements). This has been proven difficult
especially when there is a need to analyse effects of changes to the overall sequence

of construction
Inadequacy for work-face executions As projects enter their construction phase,

detailed short term planning is delegated to engineers, superintendents, or foremen.

Rather than employing the CPM, simple Bar chart or activity lists are dominant
techniques for this detailed planning. Existing CPM tools do not provide adequate
support for analysis of constraints at operational level. Resource allocation, smoothing
or levelling procedures are incapable of ensuring full continuity for a production crew
or process. For complex projects, field personnel find the CPM schedules confusing
and, therefore, less useful. Large amount of efforts are required to re-plan and redraw
the network each time it was updated. Furthermore, the CPM has inflexibility and
lack of expressiveness to cope with the varied pattern of construction in the field.

11

2.3.3.6

The program evaluation and review technique

Another Network-scheduling method that is often used in planning and design application is
the program evaluation and review technique (PERT). PERT is a network similar to CPM but
which has activity durations expressed as probability distribution rather than fixed values.
PERT network also have critical paths, and the project duration can be calculated. However,
this duration being a sum of distributions is itself a probability distribution, and hence it is
termed stochastic. PERT is the more general of the two technique, but CPM is the one more
widely used. CPM also have various and sundry cost and resource control capabilities.
The traditional scheduling methods such as Critical Path Method (CPM) and Program
Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) are not enough for scheduling, because they
produce infinite schedules, i.e. they cannot take resource constraints into account. Infinite
scheduling may give results, which are not feasible. A schedule is called feasible, if the
precedence relations are maintained and the resource and other constraints are satisfied.
Efficient methods to solve resource constrained scheduling problems are needed,
(Kamarainen et al, 2000). The CPM generates useful information for the project manager to
plan and control the project more actively and efficiently, however the CPM has proven to be
helpful only when the project deadline is not fixed and the resources are not constrained by
either the availability or time, (Goncalves, 2006).
2.3.4

Network Definitions

Early start: The earliest an activity can start.

Early finish: The earliest an activity can finish.
Late finish: The latest an activity can finish without delaying project completion.
Late start: The latest an activity can start without delaying project completion.
Free float: The maximum time an activity can be delayed without delaying the start of the
succeeding activity.
Total float: The maximum time an activity can be delayed without delaying completion of the
project.
In this dissertation AOA/AON diagrams are used to show the data about the activities, and
the results obtained and the symbols used are as shown in figure (2.4).

12

Where:
Act: is the activity name.
Duration: is the activity normal duration.
ES: Early start of the activity.
EF: Early finish of the activity.
LS: Late start of the activity.
LF: Late finish of the activity.
Figure 2.4 AON symbols

2.3.5

Various Construction project constraints

The order of activities is based on the timing of some activities relative to the occurrence of
other activities. Ordering activities is not necessarily as straightforward as it may seem on the
surface. The reason why two activities must be done in a particular order can be termed a
constraint. Without constraints on a project, all activities can theoretically begin on the first
day of construction. But constraints do exist in the real world and they must be considered in
order for a network to be useful. Constraints, as described by (Hinze, 2008) are of variety of
types as followed:
Physical Constraints: Physical constraints exist due to the physical process of construction,
such as the need to erect forms before concrete can be placed. These are logic constraints that
include those defined by how (construction methods) the project is to be carried out.
Resource Constraints: These constraints are conditions of availability that dictate that certain
activities cannot be performed simultaneously because insufficient resources are available.
13

For example, having only one crane available that must be used on two otherwise
independent activities might require that the activities be scheduled so that they do not occur
at the same time. Similarly, the amount of concrete that can be placed in a single day may be
dictated by the production capacity of the concrete batch plant.
Safety Constraints: Safety requirement may dictate that activities not occur simultaneously
(e.g., overhead and ground level work in the same area, drilling and blasting taking place
concurrently) or that a specified sequence occur (e.g., erection of safety barriers before
allowing work in an area). Safety considerations may also dictate defining nonworking days
for extremely hot or cold days. Project lighting requirements may also dictate by safety
concerns.
Financial Constraints: Monetary constraints can include the staggering of high-cost activities
to minimize cash requirements during construction or the necessity of securing loans prior to
undertaking certain portions of a project. Large cash flow items might also be scheduled so
that they are incurred in a particular tax year.
Environmental Constraints: Environmental constraints can include the need to carry out
mitigation procedures prior to other activities and may also address restriction such as not
working in certain areas during such times as spawning season, fish runs, or eagle nesting.
Management constraints: Sometimes referred to as arbitrary, these can be defined simply
as additional constrains not otherwise categorized here. They may relate to requirements of
supervisory time, consequences of tax strategy decisions, cash flow needs, or the demands of
other projects not reflected in the network.
Contractual Constraints: The owner may impose constraints on the construction process. The
owner of condominium projects may require that a particular phase of the project be fully
completed and occupied prior to beginning construction of the next phase. On a remodelling
project, the owner may require that construction noise or dust be kept to a minimum if a
portion of the facility will remain occupied and in operation.
Regulatory constraints: Governmental agencies are also known to impose constraints on the
construction process. This includes regulations that are enforced by such federal agencies as
the Environmental Protection Agency, land use restrictions that might be imposed by a
municipal government, the other regulations enacted at the municipal, county, state, or federal

14

levels. Some of these constraints would also be included among the environmental
constraints.
Among various constraints discussed above this dissertation considers in detail the Time cost
trade off.

15

CHAPTER 3
TIME COST TRADE-OFF IN CPM
3.1Introduction
In addition to scheduling projects, project managers are frequently confronted with the
problem of having to reduce the schedule completion time than that indicated by the CPM
network analysis to meet a pre-specified deadline. Conventional CPM assumes fixed normal
duration for each activity and schedule is dictated by interdependent precedence relation of
activities. The normal duration of project is then the sum of normal duration of all activities
lying on the critical path. TCT analysis is the technique used to overcome CPM's lack of this
ability to contract the project schedule to a specified duration. Time-Cost Trade-off (TCT)
analysis is a technique used to overcome CPM's lack of this ability to confine the schedule to
a specified duration. The objective of the analysis is to reduce the original CPM duration of a
project in order to meet a specific deadline with the minimum cost (Chassiakos and
Sakellaropoulos; 2005). TCT analysis is an important management tool because it can also be
used to accelerate a project so that delays can be recovered and liquidated damages avoided.
Construction planners must select appropriate resources, including crew size, equipment,
methods and technologies, to perform the tasks of a construction project. In general, there is a
trade-off between time and cost to complete a task-the less expensive the resources, the
longer it takes. Using critical-path-method techniques, the overall project cost can be reduced
by using less expensive resources for noncritical activities without impacting the duration.
The project can be accelerated through the addition of resources, e.g., people or equipment,
or through the addition of work hours to crash critical activities. Reducing project duration
therefore results in an increase in direct costs, e.g., the cost of materials, labour, and
equipment. The increase in direct cost expenditures, however, can be justified if the indirect
costs, e.g., expenditures for management, supervision, and inspection, are reduced or if a
bonus is earned (Gould, 2005).

3.2Project time-cost relationship

Total project costs include both direct costs and indirect costs of performing the activities of
the project. If each activity of the project is scheduled for the duration that results in the
minimum direct cost (normal duration) then the time to complete the entire project might be
too long and substantial penalties associated with the late project completion might be
16

incurred. At the other extreme, a manager might choose to complete the activity in the
minimum possible time, called crash duration, but at a maximum cost. Thus, planners
perform what is called time-cost trade-off analysis to shorten the project duration. This can be
done by selecting some activities on the critical path to shorten their duration. As the direct
cost for the project equals the sum of the direct costs of its activities, then the project direct
cost will increase by decreasing its duration. On the other hand, the indirect cost will
decrease.
M in im u m c o s t = o p t im a l p r o je c t t im e
T o t a l p r o je c t c o s t
I n d ir e c t c o s t
C o s t( $ )

D ir e c t c o s t t

C r a s h in g T im e
P r o je c t D u r a t io n

Figure 3.5 Project time-cost relationship

Figure (3.1) shows the direct and indirect cost relationships with the project duration. The
project total time-cost relationship can be determined by adding up the direct cost and
indirect cost values together. The optimum project duration can be determined as the project
duration that results in the least project total cost.
The objective of crashing a network is to determine the optimum project schedule. Crashing
may also be required to expedite the execution of a project, irrespective of the increase in
cost. In such cases decisions consist of schedule of activities in such a way that the increase
in cost is kept to a minimum possible limit.

3.3Existing Techniques for Construction Time-Cost Trade-Off Analysis

Several researchers have addressed the TCT analysis using various methods, starting with
enumerative methods and ending with artificial intelligence. However in the literature, three
major approaches have been used for solving TCT problems: mathematical programming
17

models, heuristic approaches, and genetic algorithms. Heuristic methods are simple rule of
thumb and are easy to understand but lack the mathematical rigor and do not guarantee
optimal solution. Linear, programming method is difficult to formulate but may provide
optimal solution. Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are optimization search procedures that mimic
natural evolution. GAs requires robust time consuming search algorithm and fine tuning of
parameters and are applicable to large problem (Hegazy, 2002).
From practical point of view Mathematical and heuristic methods are the two approaches
used to solve the time-cost trade-off problems in real life project scheduling. Mathematical
methods convert the project time-cost-trade-off problems to mathematical models and use
linear programming, integer programming, or dynamic programming to solve the problem.
Kelly (1961) formulated by the time-cost trade-off problems using linear programming by
assuming linear relationship between time and cost for construction activities. Meyer and
Shaffer (1963) used integer programming to solve time-cost problems including both linear
and discrete relationships within the same activity. Robinson (1975) developed a dynamic
programming approach to solve time-cost trade-off problems. Reda and Carr (1989) used
mixed integer programming to solve the time-cost trade-off problem within related activities.
Mathematical approaches convert CPM network and time-cost relationships into constraints
and objective functions. Mathematical programming algorithms are used to obtain the
optimal solutions. The advantage of mathematical approaches includes efficiency and
accuracy. However formulating constraints and objective function is time-consuming and
prone to errors. Mathematical programming knowledge is necessary to formulate these
mathematical models correctly. Few construction planners are trained to perform this type of
formulation, especially for large networks.
Recently, with the fast growth in computer technology and advances in artificial intelligence
applications, computational optimization techniques were used to solve the problem by
means of genetic algorithms (Hegazy, 1999), (H. Li and P. Love, 1997), (D. X. M. Zheng,
2004) and artificial neural networks (A. B. Senouci, 2001). Other efforts were devoted to
treat time and cost options as random variables (C.W. Feng, 2000) or fuzzy numbers (S. S.
Leu, 2001). Several researchers have explored genetic algorithm and simulated annealing to
investigate the entire solution space using random search techniques and can find several
good solutions, which is useful for decision makers. These methods, however, require
problem-dependent parameter tuning, large computational time, and do not guarantee to find
optimal project schedules (Hegazy, 2011).
18

Heuristic methods are non-computer approaches that require less computational effort than
mathematical methods. Examples of heuristic approaches include Fondahls method (Fondahl
1961), Pragers structural model (Prager 1963), Siemenss effective-cost slope model
(Siemens 1971), and Moselthis structural stiffness method (Moselthi 1993). These heuristic
methods provide a way to obtain good solutions but do not guarantee optimal solutions. In
addition, the solutions offered by heuristic methods do not provide the range of possible
solutions, making it difficult to experiment with different scenarios for what-if analysis.
Judging from the state of research, there is a need to develop a more efficient and
accurate method to solve the time-cost trade-off problems for construction planning. The
following sections describe a new approach to solving construction time-cost trade-off
problems that provides an efficient means of finding optimal strategies for construction timecost decisions.
TCT analysis involves selecting some of the critical activities in order to reduce their duration
through the use of a faster construction method, even at an additional cost. Different
combinations of construction methods for the activities can then be formed, each resulting in
a specific project duration and direct cost. To determine the optimum TCT decision for the
project, the direct cost and indirect cost curves are plotted individually so that the total cost
curve can be developed from the addition of these two components. The minimum point on
the total cost curve represents the set of optimum combination of construction methods for
the activities. However, for projects that involve a large number of activities with varying
construction options, finding optimal TCT decisions becomes difficult and time consuming
(Zheng et al, 2004). (Hegazy, 2002) compared the advantages and drawbacks of these
techniques, as shown in Table 3.1.
In the following section simple heuristic approach is illustrated solving manually a small
example problem
Heuristic approaches are generally applied in the TCT analysis. In particular, a simple
heuristic is to first apply critical path scheduling with all activity durations assumed to be at
normal duration corresponding to minimum (normal) cost. Activities on the critical path
having lowest cost slope i.e. increase in cost per unit reduction in time are then explored to
reduce the project duration. The heuristic solution proceeds by shortening activities in the
order of their lowest impact on costs. As the duration of activities on the critical path is
shortened, the project duration is also reduced. Eventually, other paths may also become
19

critical. By manual or automatic adjustments of this kind, optimal schedules can be identified.
The desired solution to contract the project to a specified duration may or may not be possible
depending on time cost data of activities. A small example illustrating use of TCT employing
heuristic approach is described in the following section.
Table 3.1 Existing techniques for Time-Cost Trade-Off analysis
Existing techniques for Time-Cost Trade-Off analysis
Heuristic Methods

Mathematical Programming
Models

Genetic Algorithms

Description: Simple rules of

thumb

Linear Programming, Integer

Programming, or Dynamic
Programming

Optimization search procedures

that mimic natural evolution and
reproduction

- May provide optimal solutions

- Robust search algorithm - Can

use discrete relationship
between time and cost Applicable to large problems

- Difficult to formulate - Gradientdescent approach that often terminates

in local minimum if not properly
formulated. Mostly assume linear,
rather than discrete relationship
between time and cost

- Random search that is time

consuming - Cannot tell when or
if an optimal solution is obtained

Kelly 1961, Liu et al. 1995,

Chassiakos et al. 2000, Moussourakis
and Haksever 2004, Chassiakos and
Sakellaropoulos 2005

Feng et al. 1997, Li et al. 1997,

Lu and Li 2003, Senouci and
Eldin 2004, Zheng et al. 2004,
Eshtehardian et al. 2008,
Rogalska et al. 2008, Zahraie
and Tavakolan 2009

Advantages: - Easy to
understand - Provide good
solutions May be used for
large projects only if heuristic
is translated in a computer
code
Drawbacks: - Lack
mathematical rigor - Do not
guarantee optimal solutions Mostly assume linear, rather
than discrete relationship
between time and cost
Examples: Prager 1963,
Siemens 1971, Moselhi 1993

In the following section simple heuristic approach is illustrated solving manually a small
example problem
Heuristic approaches are generally applied in the TCT analysis. In particular, a simple
heuristic is to first apply critical path scheduling with all activity durations assumed to be at
normal duration corresponding to minimum (normal) cost. Activities on the critical path
having lowest cost slope i.e. increase in cost per unit reduction in time are then explored to
reduce the project duration. The heuristic solution proceeds by shortening activities in the
order of their lowest impact on costs. As the duration of activities on the critical path is
shortened, the project duration is also reduced. Eventually, other paths may also become
critical. By manual or automatic adjustments of this kind, optimal schedules can be identified.
The desired solution to contract the project to a specified duration may or may not be possible
depending on time cost data of activities. A small example illustrating use of TCT employing
heuristic approach is described in the following section.
20

The example project (case study) consists of five activities detailed in Table 1 and various
steps in crashing the project from its normal duration of 12 days to minimum possible
duration of 7 days are shown Fig. 1. No further reduction in project duration is possible as all
the activities on at least one critical path have been crashed to its crash duration.
Table 3.2 Precedence relation, Time- cost data and resource requirement of example problem
S.N.

Activity

Precedence
(Preceded by)

1
2
3
4
5

A
B
C
D
E

Nil
Nil
A
B
C and D

Resource
Requirement
(units)
2
3
2
1
3

Normal
Duration
(days)
2
3
4
6
3

21

Crash
Duration
(days)
2
2
2
3
2

Normal
Cost ($)

Crashed
Cost ($)

Cost Slope
($/day)

400
600
600
700
500

NA
800
700
1000
600

100
200
50
100
100

3.4Methodology Adopted
The general philosophy of linear programming converts the project time-cost trade-off
problems to minimizing the objective cost function, subject to inequality time constraints, and
then solve the problem. Computerized CPM procedure and the application of project
management system had been developed by many researchers, for example, (Burns, 1996;
Liu, 1995). Computerized CPM procedure using spreadsheets to solve the time-cost
tradeoffs problem also already was integrated as parts of the standard OR textbook, for
example, (Hillier, 2007, 2008).The LP-Solver approach for project crashing is still the most
reliable approach to analysing TCT in a project (Kelley, 1961,Burns,1996, Ragsdale, 2003)

22

2
A

5
B

Normal Project duration 12 days

Critical paths B-D-E
(b) Time scale version (Critical path BD-E)

(a) Conventional CPM schedule

6
3

6
3

3
2

Project duration 9 days

Project duration 8 days

Two critical paths B-D-E & A-C-E

Two critical paths B-D-E & A-C-E

(c) Crashing activity D

A

B
3
2

Summary of crashing by conventional

4
3
D
6
3

(d) Crashing activity E

heuristic method
4

3
2

S. n.
1
2
3

Project duration 7 days

Two critical paths B-D-E & A-C-E

Activity
Crashed
NIL
D
E
C and
D both

Time

Project

Increase

Total

reduction

Duration

in Cost

Cost

(days)
0
3
1

(days)
12
09
08

($)
NIL
300
100

($)
2800
3100
3200

07

150

3450

(e) Crashing activity B and C

simultaneously
Figure 3.6 Manual TCT computations (conventional heuristic method)

3.5Concluding Remark:
The goal of project crashing is to complete a project by an earlier deadline at minimum cost.
Crashing a project manually can be quite tedious, especially to projects of realistic sizes.
Formulating a problem of project crashing as a linear or nonlinear programming problem, and
23

using Excel Solver to solve the problem provides an efficient computerized approach for
small size projects. (Mantel et. Al, 2011) demonstrated the use of Excel Solver to facilitate
choosing the activities to crash in project crashing. The network diagram in their approach is
based on AOA (activity-on-arrow) networks. But the required spreadsheet needs to be
reformatting for every individual project and depending on the number of predecessor and
successor activities. (Ragsdale, 2003) argued that the LP-Solver approach for project crashing
is still the most reliable approach to analysing cost-time tradeoffs in a project. However
formulating constraints and objective function is time-consuming and prone to errors.
Mathematical programming knowledge is necessary to formulate these mathematical models
correctly. Few construction planners are trained to perform this type of formulation,
especially for large networks. Thus based on above a computer program has been developed
wherein the user is to define the project in terms of activity time cost data and precedence
relations only. Thereafter the program takes care of formulating the objective function and
defining the relevant constrains inequalities and solve for the desired TCT results. A detail
background for Mathematical Programming Models is described in next chapter.

24

CHAPTER 4
LP FORMULATIONS FOR TIME-COST TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS
4.1Introduction
Mathematical approaches adopted in construction management literature convert CPM
network and time-cost relationships of the project into constraints and objective functions.
Based on literature survey the LP-Solver approach for project crashing is still the most
reliable approach to analysing TCT in a project (Kelly, 1961, Burns et al 1996, Ragsdale,
2003). In this dissertation work Linear programming technique has been employed to address
the time cost trade off because of the easy availability of high speed computers. A computer
code in C++ has been developed and an open source solver has been employed in the
computer program to solve the defined time cost trade off through linear programming. A
detail background for Mathematical Programming Models and concerned formulation has
been highlighted in the following section.

4.2Linear Integer Programming Model

As discussed in (Render and Stair, 1991, Taylor, 1996, Phillips et. al., 1976) and Williams,
1999), both AoA and AoN network for crashing can be formulated as a linear programming
problem. Obtaining a good and nearly optimal solution with a reasonable amount of
computational effort is the major motivating factor for this method. Integer programming can
find the exact optimal solution, but it is computationally intensive. The following sections
describe the formulation of linear and integer programming models. Examples are given to
demonstrate how to formulate the mathematical models.
In the literature, the optimization procedures designed for the Deadline and Time/Cost Curve
Problems could solve only moderate-sized instances. Our algorithms, on the other hand,
solve large-sized instances in reasonable times.
4.2.1

Deadline Problem

The objective function and the constraints of the problem give rise to three different
Time/Cost Trade-off Problem categories: Deadline Problem, Budget Problem, and Time/Cost
Curve Problem
The Deadline Problem assumes an upper limit on the duration of the project, i.e., the
maximum completion time over all activities. The aim is to minimize the total cost.
25

The Budget Problem assumes an upper limit on the available amount of resources allocated.
The objective is to minimize the project duration.
The Time/Cost Curve Problem generates all efficient solutions relative to the total cost, and
project duration objectives. A non-dominated, i.e., an efficient, set is defined using the
successive solutions of the Deadline or Budget Problems.
In this study, we first consider the Deadline Problem. We then consider a Time/Cost Curve
Problem. Our approach uses the successive solutions of the Deadline Problem.
Various assumptions implied in LP model for TCT are:
a.
b.

Activity durations are independent of each other;

Cost functions are linear and independent. The cost of crashing of one activity does

c.

not change whether or not some other activity is also crashed;

Variations in the overall requirements for resources do not affect the project cost.

Assuming that resources are not constrained any of the project activity can be completed in
any duration between its normal and crash duration. Thus, the entire scheduling problem is to
minimize total cost C (equal to the sum of the actual cost for all activities) subject to
constraints arising from:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

The desired project deadline duration, T,

The normal and crash activity duration, and
Constraints associated with the precedence or completion times of activities.

C ra s h D u ra tio n
an d C rash C o st

L in e ar
F u n c tio n
C ost

C o nve x
F u n c tio n
p ie c e -w is e
F u n c tio n
N o rm a l D u ratio n
and N o rm al C o st

T im e

Figure 4.7 Piecewise Linear approximation of time cost trade-off for an activity

26

The time-cost trade-off problem is of practical interest when a planner has to crash activities
to meet a pre specified deadline or when he/she wants to evaluate whether such a crash is
worth an additional cost (Murty, 1992). Moreover, the time-cost trade-off analysis would be
beneficial if some activities are lengthened, whereas the extended project duration is still
acceptable and the project cost is reduced. Since the time-cost trade-off problem involves two
objectives: minimum cost and minimum duration, the solution is said to be Pareto optimal
where there is no other shorter duration under a given budget or no lower cost under a pre
specified duration (De et al, 1992). The Pareto optimal front is also called the minimum timecost curve. The minimum time-cost curve relates the shortest project duration to different
levels of budget.
Time-Cost relationship for an activity
Many researchers studied the assumption of time-cost relationship of each activity, such as
piece wise linear (Fondahl, 1961) convex (Foldes, 1993), concave (Falk, 1972), neither
convex nor concave (Murty, 1992), quadratic (Deckro, 1995), and discrete. In this study, all
activity time-cost relationships are assumed to be piecewise linear, because of the following
reasons. First, the linearity would essentially approximate the true variation without much
error (Kamburowski, 1997). Second, linear relationships allow the application of linear
programming (LP) techniques, which are efficient and can guarantee a global optimal
solution. Third, nonlinearity of time-cost relationships can be circumvented by piece wise
linearization (Vrat, 1986).
4.2.2

Model Formulations

In 2005, I-Tung Yang [Yang-2005] proposed a time cost trade-off model using piecewiselinear segments to approximate a nonlinear time-cost curve for project activities. This
dissertation describes our attempt to apply the model in crashing of project. The purpose is to
evaluate the practical applicability of the model for real life projects.
An underlying assumption of the present model is that the duration for each activity lies in a
feasible range with a piecewise- linear relationship holding between cost and duration within
this range. The rationalization of using piecewise-linear segments to approximate a nonlinear
time-cost curve has been shown practical for engineers. The approximation can be improved
by increasing the number of linear segments. Consider the three curves in Fig. --. Since the
long dashed line departs too radically from the true curve, it is obviously inappropriate to
represent the true curve. In this instance, one can use points M and N to divide the curve into
27

three parts and connect three linear segments (short dashed) for a much better approximation.
By increasing the number of linear segments, one can approximate the nonlinear curve within
an acceptable error range. To sum up, a better approximation is always possible but at the
cost of more linear segments and, hence, requires more modelling time and effort.
The piecewise linearization would lead to a situation where the time-cost curve has multiple
cost slopes and needs a special treatment. The treatment will be demonstrated when we
discuss the application of the present model in a remodelling project.
In Fig. 4.1, the feasible range of each activity is defined between two extremes: the minimum
cost, called normal point, and the minimum project duration, called crash point. Since
costs are assumed to vary linearly from the normal point to the crash point, the cost slope for
activity (between event nodes and) can be expressed as
ij=

CC ij CN ij
TC ij TN ij

(1)

Where
CC ij cost of activity ij at the crash point ;
CN ij cost of activity at thenormal point ;
TC ij duration of activity at thecrash point ;
TN ij duration of activity at the normal point .
Thus, the intercept on the cost axis is

ij =CC ij ij TCij

(2)

With both coefficients, the cost associated with any feasible duration can be expressed as
Cij ij + ij T ij.

(3)

The LP formulation of the time-cost trade-off problem for an activity-on-arrow (AOA)

network is

28

 ij + ij T ij

(4)

(i , j)

Minimize

C ij=

(i , j)

(i , j )

Subject to
TE i +T ij TE j 0 (i , j )

(5)

T ij TE j (i, j)

(6)

T ij TN ij (i, j)

(7)

TE s =0

(8)

TE f T

(9)

TE i ,T ij 0

(10)

Where s and f denote the start and finish events,

T ij is the duration of activity (i, j),

TE i

represents the event time of node i, and T is the pre specified project duration.
The LP formulation for an equivalent activity-on-node (AON) network is
i+ i T j

(5)

Ci=
i

Minimize
i

Subject to
TSi +T iTE j 0 (i , j)

(6)

T i TN i i

(7)

T i TN i i

(8)

ESs =0

(9)

29

ESf T

(10)

ESi ,T i 0

(11)

Where T i

is the duration of activity i and

ESi

represents the early start time of activity

i. Both models presented above can be solved very efficiently with a guaranteed global
optimum.
For an AOA network, this study interchanges the objective function and constraint (9)
to minimize the project duration subject to the level of budget. The new objective function i
Minimize TE f

(12)

While constraint (9) becomes

ij T ij C
C ij =
(i , j)
Minimize

ij +

(13)

(i , j)

(i , j)

Where, C represents the level of budget.

Similarly, for an AON network, the new objective is
Minimize ES f

(14)

And constraint (16) becomes

i+ i T i C .

(15)

Ci=
i

Minimize
i

4.3Minimum Time-Cost Curve and Total Cost Curve

In the time-cost trade-off analysis, the minimum time-cost curve can be used to relate
the minimum direct cost to a given project duration or to find the shortest project duration
under a given budget. The curve is essentially the Pareto optimal front defined previously.
30

The minimum time-cost curve can also be used to establish the total cost curve by
considering indirect costs and liquated damage or bonus for early completion. The goal is to
find the optimal schedule with the minimum total project cost. The major indirect cost is the
general and administrative over- head, including secretarial assistance, telephone service, and
electricity charge for the main office. Other indirect costs are project overhead, such as
connecting electricity or building site offices. These indirect costs are increasing linear
functions of time (Harris, 1978), hence, they can be written as
TE f

(22)

Where = daily indirect cost, measured in $/day and TEf = project duration.
Liquidated damage and bonus for early completion are included in the clauses of the contract.
Although liquidated damage and bonus are also increasing linear functions of time, they are
treated apart from the aforementioned indirect costs because they are associated with target
project duration. A mathematical expression of the liquidated damage and early bonus is
(23)

max [ 0,( DtargetTE f ) ]

+ max [ 0,(TE f Dtarget ) ]

Where,
+=
Daily liquidated damages, measured in $/day;

=
Daily bonus for early completion, measured in $/day; and

D target= Targeted project duration.

4.4Input and Procedure

The required input of the proposed model includes the following.
1) An acyclic and directed project network that depicts precedence relationships between
activities and includes unique start and finish nodes. The network may be activity-onarrow (AOA) or activity-on-node (AON).
2) The piecewise-linear time-cost relationship that defines the range of feasible time and
cost options for each activity.
31

3) Budget availability in the range of cost for the normal duration and crash duration
schedules.
The procedure for the time-cost trade-off analysis is as follows.
Step 1) For an AOA network, formulate a LP model by including the object function in (18)
which is subject to constraints (5)(8), (10), and (24). For an AON network, the
model should include objective function in (19) and constraints (12)(15), (17), and
(25).
Step 2) Solve the LP model by any efficient LP algorithm or software. The minimum timecost curve can be established by the following steps that succeed Step 3).
Step 3) Solve the LP model by any efficient LP solver. In the present study Coin Or open
source

solver

has

been

employed

which

incorporates

LP/IP

(Linear

programming/Integer programming algorithm) with Branch and Bound approach.

The minimum time-cost curve can be established by the following steps that succeed
Step 3).
Step 4) Repeat Step 3) iteratively for different levels of budget. Each iteration corresponds
to a point in the scatter time-cost diagram
and/or,
Step 5)

Repeat Step 3) iteratively for different specific deadline in the range of crash and
normal duration. Each iteration corresponds to a point in the scatter time-cost
diagram

Step 6) Establish the minimum time-cost curve by linking the points in the diagram.
The lengthy and error-prone process of formulating linear and integer programming objective
functions and constraints are replaced by a computer code in C++ so that users can intuitively
define time-cost and precedence relationships for activities. The LP/IP hybrid coin or solver
along with the developed computer code provides construction planners with a new and
efficient means of making good time-cost decisions. Detailed description of formulating
linear and programming objective functions and constraints is provided and an example is
given to demonstrate the use of this new method.

4.5Validation of proposed computer code

32

A number of case studies reported in the literature for the time cost trade-off solution
published only selected instances like some single specific deadline schedule or the optimum
duration schedule. The results from the proposed program have been verified for these
instances and are found to be in excellent agreement with them. All of these case studies
have been reported in the next chapter. In addition, the capabilities of the proposed program
to generate vast number of optimum schedules for the entire possible project deadline have
been deduced.
One of the case studies described in detail in the next chapter has also been described in brief
in the following section to illustrate the computer code with formulations of the LP method
developed in this work.
4.5.1

Illustrative Example for LP formulations

The process of forming the LP formulations the construction project using the proposed code
is straightforward. User need not to form objective function or constraints but to define the
project data in the usual activity time cost data and precedence relations. The constraints and
objective function is formed by the computer code. The above implementation to solve the
time-cost trade-off problem for a construction project is illustrated for a problem described in
(Harris, 1978). This project involves remodelling two rooms into a general work area and
offices for the purchasing department. The work consists of removing an existing partition
between the two rooms, building new partitions, and building two floor-to-ceiling bookcases along one wall in the work area.
Fig. 4.2 shows an example construction project with 12 activities whose precedence is
depicted in an AOA network form. Table-4.1 shows the available options, and their time and
costs to complete the activities. The cost slope and intercept of time cost curve (assumed
linear) are shown in last two columns. The programming can be formulated as follows.
Table 4.3 Activity data for illustrative example
Activity
Name

Predecesso
r

Normal
Time

Crash
Time

Normal
Cost

Crash
Cost

Cost
Slope

Intercept

10

500

500

500

20

10

900

1200

150

1350

30

20

3250

4150

300

5350

32

20

1000

1300

150

1750

33

40

1400

2750

450

4100

42

30

1100

1900

400

3100

44

32

1500

2400

300

3600

50

40, 42

10

4200

7200

600

10200

52a

44

1500

250

1500

52b

52a

800

1000

100

1000

60

50, 52b

1100

1300

200

1500

70

60

1300

1500

200

1900
Sum=35850

Note that Activity 10 can only be performed at five days and $500. Besides, Activity 52 has
two different cost slopes: first is -$250/day between four and six days, while another is$100/day between six and eight days. This reflects the practical situation that crashing more
days may cost extra money; therefore, Activity 52 has multiple cost slopes. A roundabout for
this situation is to split Activity 52 into two sub activities: Activities 52a and 52b. This
roundabout demonstrates how the proposed model treats the activity with multiple cost
slopes. This actually is also the key to allow piecewise linearization of a nonlinear activity
time-cost curve.

Figure 4.8 Example Network

The complete LP formulations for the example are

Minimize TE12
34

Subject to precedence constraints

TE 1 +T 10 TE 2 ;

TE 2 +T 20 TE 3 ;

TE 5 TE6 ;

TE6 +T 40 TE 7 ;

TE5 +T 42 TE 7 ;

TE 5 TE6 ;

TE6 +T 40 TE 7 ;

TE5 +T 42 TE 7 ;

TE 4 +T 44 TE 8 ;

TE7 TE 8 ;

TE7 +T 50 TE 10 ;

TE 8 +TE 52a TE9 ;

TE 9 +T 52b TE 10 ;

TE 10 +T 60 TE 11 ;

TE 11 +T 70 TE 12

Upper and lower bounds of activity durations

T 10=5 ;
1 T 32 3 ;

1 T 20 3;
1 T 40 3 ;

4 T 30 7 ;
1 T 42 3 ;

1 T 44 3 ;

1 T 50 3;

1 T 52a 3 ;

1 T 52b 3 ;

1 T 60 3;

1 T 70 3;

35

Financial constraint
35 850+ (150 T 20 ) + ( 300 T 30 ) + (150 T 32 )
+ (450 T 40 ) + (400 T 42 ) + (300 T 44 )
+ (600 T 50 ) + ( 250 T 52 a ) + (100 T 52 b )
+ (200 T 60 ) + ( 200 T 70 ) +
Initial condition
TE1=0.
The LP model is solved by developed computer program. The global optimal solutions
(minimum project durations) are concluded in the next chapter under case study2.

4.6Need for Computer Code

Mathematical approaches convert CPM network and time-cost relationships into constraints
and objective functions. Mathematical programming algorithms are used to obtain the
optimal solutions. The advantage of mathematical approaches includes efficiency and
accuracy. However formulating constraints and objective function is time-consuming and
prone to errors and rarely succeeds without several revisions. For large CPM networks, the
effort to check and verify the formulation could be phenomenal. Mathematical programming
knowledge is necessary to formulate these mathematical models correctly. Few construction
planners are trained to perform this type of formulation, especially for large networks. Thus
obtaining a good and nearly optimal solution with a reasonable amount of computational
effort is the major motivating factor for this method.

4.7Computer Implementation
A computer program, using C++ has been developed in this dissertation work for Linux
environment. The solver within computer program contains programs to solve both linear and
integer programming problems. For this Coin-OR Cbc solver was included in the computer
code. The developed computer code enhances the usefulness of the LP/IP hybrid algorithm
by providing a user-friendly template for data entry. Users can enter time and cost
relationships for activity options (either continuous or discrete) and network precedence
36

relationships similar to defining CPM networks. Program then automatically formulates

objective functions and constraints for linear and integer programming. Users can perform
what-if analysis by entering the desired duration to find the optimal strategies that minimize
cost. The program is also capable of performing what if analysis by entering the desired
budget to find the shortest project duration schedule.
The process of using developed software includes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Entering data for network and activity options;

Finding the linear programming solutions (lower bounds);
Setting the described duration and/or budget;
Using integer programming to find the exact solutions for optimum cost and/or

shortest project duration; and

(5) Plotting the total cost curve.
4.7.1

Data Input

The data required to run the program is shown in the form of an input data file format as
below.
Table 4.4 Data input file for case study 2 (Chapter V).
L
0
0
0
0
A
4900
6000
10
8
B
3000
6000
25
24
B
C
2000
3300
3
2
C
D

Linear
Indirect Cost
Penalty
Incentive
Deadline
Activity Name (A in this case)
Normal Cost
Crash Cost
Normal Duration
Crash Duration
Activity Name (B in this case)
Normal Cost
Crash Cost
Normal Duration
Crash Duration
Link (Precedence Relationship)
Normal Cost
Crash Cost
Normal Duration
Crash Duration
Link (Precedence Relationship)

C
G
6000
8000
15
13
E
H
8000
9000
5
4
F
H
G
H
D
I
3000
4000
10
9
H

37

1600
3000
60
58
C
E
5000
6000
20
19
C
F
1800
4000
10
9

Normal Cost
Crash Cost
Normal Duration
Crash Duration

I
I
J
1000
2000
2
1
none
B
44000

Budget
Value for Budget

The exact solutions can be generated by linear programming approach. The algorithm proves
to be very efficient. It took only a second to find all exact solutions for the pilot network of
137 activities with assumed time cost data on an Intel i5 PC. The total cost curve can also be
generated by Optimum if the user has defined the indirect cost rate. The total cost curve is
described in one of the case studies presented in the next chapter.

38

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1Introduction
This chapter presents five case studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed
approach for resolving constraints in regard to specified deadline and available budget. Thus
the capability of CPM in project control is appreciably enhanced. These five cases are
described in the following sections. All case studies have been discussed in detail wherein
contraction of project for different specific deadlines starting from normal project duration to
minimum possible duration has been carried out so as to minimize the cost. Thus the paretooptimal front was developed by listing the various feasible deadlines and the corresponding
minimum (optimum) cost. The minimum Time- cost curve was then drawn to be used in
making the intelligent decisions for time cost trade-off of the project. The developed program
is capable of generating direct cost v/s time curve as well as indirect time v/s cost curve. Both
of these diagrams have been shown for case study 1. The computer code is capable of
computing the optimum duration of the project for which the overall cost of project will be
least. This has been shown for case study 1 as the data of indirect cost is available for this
case study. In the remaining case study the data for direct cost was given in the form of time
cost relation for various project activities but indirect cost was not specified. Thus the
minimum time cost curve was obtained in these case studies considering direct project cost
only. However in construction project indirect cost generally vary linearly with time and thus
for meeting a specific deadline only direct cost need to be considered and TCT analysis is
carried out to deduce a schedule of various activities so as to minimize the project cost. Thus
considering only the direct cost for the remaining case studies i.e. case studies 2,3,4 and 5
does not in any way restrain in making the intelligent decision for project schedules.
Another potential of the proposed computer code is that for a given budget it provides a
schedule of activities so as to make the project duration the shortest one. However to show
the variation of shortest project duration for different specified budget all case studies were
analysed by plotting the budget v/s shortest duration. The budget v/s time curve was drawn
for all the remaining case studies considering the direct cost only for reasons mentioned
earlier. The following sections summarize the project details and the results obtained from the
TCT analysis using the developed computer code. Unless mentioned otherwise Time unit in
these projects is day and currency unit US dollar.
39

5.2Presentation of results:
The project time cost summary is given in tabular form wherein normal project duration,
crash project duration, normal cost of project and crash cost of project is listed. For the case
study 1 indirect cost is specified and so the optimum duration and corresponding minimum
cost is also listed.
Next the summary of minimum cost for all the various feasible deadlines between normal and
crash duration is listed and the minimum cost time curve can be plotted and thus paretooptimum front is developed. Further for each of the optimum solution corresponding to a
specific deadline the schedule of all the activities is mentioned to further analyse the specific
schedule chosen for some other constraints like resource limit etc.
The program further lists the shortest duration of the project and corresponding schedule of
all the activities for a specified budget. Thus assuming the various level of budget between
normal cost and crash cost the shortest durations can be deduced. The budget-shortest
duration curve has then been sketched. The above results were obtained for all the five case
studies and have been listed in following sections.

5.3Details of case studies:

Five case studies (Zeinalzadeh, A, 2011, Elmabrouk, 2011, Yang, 2005, Behind, 2011 and
Lima, 2006) were selected from the published literature to present the versatility of the
developed computer program. It can be noted that only selected instances were reported in
these cases which have been used to verify the validity of the program. All of these case
studies were then dealt with in depth analysis for developing pareto-optimum solutions in the
form of time v/s minimum cost curves. The following section lists the results for above case
studies.

40

5.3.1

Details of case study-1:

Table 5.1. 1 Activity data

Activity Name

Predecessor

Normal Time

Crash Time

Normal Cost

Crash Cost

Cost Slope

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
TOTAL

A
C
E
F
H
I
K
L
N
P
T
V
-

15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
12
8
-

13
1
10
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
4
3
5
1
3
1
1
9
6
-

225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
180000
104000
1544000

265000
28000
290000
28000
50000
17000
54000
85000
17000
69000
65000
34000
43000
135000
82000
105000
95000
35000
80000
26000
35000
240000
108000
1986000

20000
2000
20000
2000
20000
1000
2000
20000
1000
2000
20000
1000
2000
20000
2000
15000
2000
15000
15000
1000
15000
20000
2000
-

Project Network: The precedence relations are shown in the project network shown in Figure
5.1.1. Two dummies activities are 12-16 and 13-16.

41

Figure 5.1. 1 Project Network for Project

Results of TCT analysis

CPU TIME: -

0m 0.057s

Table 5.1. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering Indirect cost 25000/day:
Normal duration
Normal cost
Crash duration
Crash cost
Optimum duration
Optimum cost

20
20,07,000
15
20,44,000
16
19,90,000

Table 5.1. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines

Duration
Optimum Cost considering Indirect cost
(25000/day)
Optimum Cost considering direct cost
only

20

19

18

17

16

15

2044020

2021019

1998018

1993017

1990016

2007015

1544020

1546019

1548018

1568017

1590016

1632015

42

Table 5.1. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity Duration Cost
A
14
245000
B
1
28000
C
14
210000
D
1
28000
E
2
30000
F
2
16000
G
4
52000
H
3
45000
I
2
16000
J
5
65000
K
3
45000
L
4
32000
M
3
39000
N
5
75000
O
6
78000
P
5
75000
Q
7
91000
R
2
20000
S
5
50000
T
3
24000
U
2
20000
V
9
240000
W
6
108000
Project duration
15
Project cost
2007000

Activity Duration Cost

A
15
225000
B
1
28000
C
14
210000
D
2
26000
E
2
30000
F
2
16000
G
4
52000
H
3
45000
I
2
16000
J
5
65000
K
3
45000
L
4
32000
M
3
39000
N
5
75000
O
6
78000
P
5
75000
Q
7
91000
R
2
20000
S
5
50000
T
3
24000
U
2
20000
V
10
220000
W
6
108000
Project duration
16
Project cost
1990000

43

Activity Duration Cost

A
15
225000
B
2
26000
C
14
210000
D
2
26000
E
2
30000
F
2
16000
G
4
52000
H
3
45000
I
2
16000
J
5
65000
K
3
45000
L
4
32000
M
3
39000
N
5
75000
O
6
78000
P
5
75000
Q
7
91000
R
2
20000
S
5
50000
T
3
24000
U
2
20000
V
11
200000
W
6
108000
Project duration 17
Project cost
1993000

Table 5.1.4 (Contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
12
6

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
180000
108000

18
1998000

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
12
7

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
180000
106000

Project duration 19
Project cost
2021000

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
12
8

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
180000
104000

20
2044000

Total Cost
2055000
2045000
2035000
2025000
PROJECT COST

2015000
2005000
1995000
1985000

15

16

17

18

PROJECT DURATION (DAYS)

44

19

20

Direct Cost

Indirect Cost

1635000
1615000
1595000
PROJECT COST
1575000
1555000
1535000

15

16

17

18

19

20

PROJECT DURATION (DAYS)

Figure 5.1. 2 Time-Cost Curve

Results of Budget Time Data:

Table 5.1. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various level of budget:
Considering Total (direct + indirect) cost

Considering direct cost only

Budget

Actual Cost

Shortest
duration

Budget

Actual Cost

Shortest
duration

1990000

1990000

16

1540000

1546000

19

1994000

1990000

16

1545000

1646000

19

2000000
2010000
2015000
2020000

2007000
2007000
2007000
2007000
2007000

15
15
15
15
15

1550000
1580000
1590000
1630000

1568000
1568000
1632000
1632000
1632000

17
17
15
15
15

2025000

1650000

45

Table 5.1. 6 Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Duration
14
1
14
1
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
9
6

Cost
245000
28000
210000
28000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
240000
108000

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Duration
15
1
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
10
6

Direct Cost : 1632000

Direct Cost : 1590000

Indirect Cost : 375000

Indirect Cost : 400000

Total Cost : 2007000

Total Cost : 1990000

Shortest duration 15

Shortest duration 16

46

Cost
225000
28000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
220000
108000

Table 5.1.6(Contd.) Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
11
6

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
200000
108000

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
2
5
3
2
12
7

Direct Cost : 1568000

Direct Cost : 1546000

Shortest duration 17

Shortest duration 19
considering direct cost only
20
19
18

Shortest Duration

17
16
15
1540000

1590000
Budget Amount

Figure 5.1. 3 Budget-Duration Curve

47

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000
45000
32000
39000
75000
78000
75000
91000
20000
50000
24000
20000
180000
106000

5.3.2

Details of case study-2:

Figure (5.2.1) illustrates a project case study reported in (Elmabrouk, 2011). Table 5.2.1
shows the activities details of normal and crash duration and the associated normal and crash
cost. The project consists of 10 real and three dummy activities. Cost slope is calculated and
is shown in last column of activity data table.
Table 5.2. 1 Activity data
Activity Name

Predecessor

Normal Time

Crash Time

Normal Cost

Crash Cost

Cost Slope

10

4900

6000

550

25

24

3000

6000

3000

2000

3300

1300

60

58

1600

3000

700

20

19

5000

6000

1000

10

1800

4000

2200

15

13

6000

8000

1000

E, F & G

8000

9000

1000

D&H

10

3000

4000

1000

1000

2000

1000

Project Network: The precedence relations are shown in the project network shown in Figure
5.2.1. Three dummies activities are 5-8, 6-8 and 7-8.

Figure 5.2. 1 Project Network for Project

Results of TCT analysis

CPU TIME: -

0m 0.057s

48

Table 5.2. 2Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only:
Normal duration
Normal cost
Crash duration
Crash cost

110
36300
102
45100
Table 5.2. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:
110
109
108
107
106
105
104

Duration
Optimum
Cost

36300

36850

37400

38100

38800

39800

40800

103

102

42100

45100

Table 5.2. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
10
25
3
60
20
10
15
5
10
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
4900
3000
2000
1600
5000
1800
6000
8000
3000
1000

110
36300

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
9
25
3
60
20
10
15
5
10
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
5450
3000
2000
1600
5000
1800
6000
8000
3000
1000

109
36850

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000

Project duration 108

Project cost
37400

Table 5.2.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
10
25
3
60
20
10
15
5
10
2

Cost
4900
3000
2000
1600
5000
1800
6000
8000
3000
1000

Project duration
107
Project cost
38100

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
15
1
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5

Cost
225000
28000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000

Project duration
106
Project cost
38800

49

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000

Project duration 105

Project cost
39800

Table 5.2.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
10
25
3
60
20
10
15
5
10
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
4900
3000
2000
1600
5000
1800
6000
8000
3000
1000

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

104
40800

Duration
15
1
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
225000
28000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000

103
42100

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Duration
15
2
14
2
2
2
4
3
2
5

Cost
225000
26000
210000
26000
30000
16000
52000
45000
16000
65000

Project duration 102

Project cost
45100

Time cost analysis curve

44000
42000
40000

Cost 38000
36000
34000
32000
102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

Duration

Figure 5.2. 2 Time cost analysis curve

Results of Budget Time Data:

Table 5.2. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:
Budget
Shortest
Duration
Actual cost

37000

38000

39000

40000

41000

42000

43000

44000

109

107

105

105

104

104

102

102

36850

38100

39800

39800

40800

40800

45100

45100

50

Figure 5.2. 3 Budget time analysis curve

Budget time analysis curve

110
108
106

Duration 104
102
100
98
36000

38000

40000

42000

Budget

51

44000

46000

52

5.3.3

Details of case study-3:

Figure 5.3.1 illustrates a project case study reported in (Yang, 2005). The Table contains the
times and costs for each of the activities, whose precedence is depicted in an AOA network
shown in Fig. 5.3.1. Note that Activity 10 can only be performed at five days and $500.
Besides, Activity 52 has two different cost slopes: first is -$250/day between four and six
days, while another is-$100/day between six and eight days. This reflects the practical
situation that crashing more days may cost extra money; therefore, Activity 52 has multiple
cost slopes. A roundabout for this situation is to split Activity 52 into two sub activities:
Activities 52a and 52b. This roundabout demonstrates how the proposed model treats the
activity with multiple cost slopes.
The project consists of twelve real and two dummy activities. Cost slope is calculated and is
shown in last column of activity data table.
Table 5.3. 1 Activity data
Activity
Name
10

Normal
Time
5

Crash
Time
5

Normal
Cost
500

Crash
Cost
500

Cost
Slope
-

20

10

900

1200

150

30

20

3250

4150

300

32

20

1000

1300

150

40

1400

2750

450

42

30

1100

1900

400

44

32

1500

2400

300

50

40, 42

10

4200

7200

600

52a

44

1500

250

52b
60
70

52a
50, 52b
60

2
2
3

0
1
2

800
1100
1300

1000
1300
1500

100
200
200

Predecessor

Project Network: The precedence relations are shown in the project network shown in Figure
5.3.1. Three dummies activities are 4-5, and 5-6 and 7-8.

53

Figure 5.3. 1 Project Network for Project

Results of TCT analysis

CPU TIME: -

0m 0.057s

Table 5.3. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only:
Normal duration
Normal cost
Crash duration
Crash cost

33
17050
21
21600

Table 5.3. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:

Duration
Optimum Cost
Duration
Optimum Cost

33
17050
26
18100

32
17150

31
17250

25
18550

24
19150

54

30
17400

29
17550

23
19750

28
17700
22
20450

27
17900
21
21600

Table 5.3. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Duration
5
3
7
5
6
5
7
5
6
2
2
3

Project duration
Project cost

33
17050

Cost
500
900
3250
1000
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
800
1100
1300

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Duration
5
3
7
5
6
5
7
5
6
1
2
3

Project duration
Project cost

32
17150

Cost
500
900
3250
1000
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
900
1100
1300

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Duration
5
3
7
5
6
5
7
5
6
0
2
3

Project duration
Project cost

31
17250

Table 5.3.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity

Duration

Cost

10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70
Activity

5
2
7
5
6
5
7
5
6
0
2
3
Duration

Cost

10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70
Activity

500
1050
3250
1000
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
1000
1100
1300

5
1
7
5
6
5
7
5
6
0
2
3

500
1200
3250
1000
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
1000
1100
1300

Duration

Cost

10
20

5
1

55

500
1200

Cost
500
900
3250
1000
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
1000
1100
1300

30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70
Project duration
Project cost

30
17400

Project duration
Project cost

29
17550

Project duration
Project cost

7
4
6
5
7
5
6
0
2
3

28
17700

56

3250
1150
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
1000
1100
1300

Table 5.3.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity

Duratio
n

10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70
Project duration
Project cost

Cost

5
1
7
4
6
5
7
5
6
0
1
3
27
17900

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Duration
5
1
7
4
6
5
7
5
6
0
1
2

Cost
500
1200
3250
1150
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
1000
1300
1500

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Duration
5
1
6
3
6
5
7
5
6
0
1
2

Cost
500
1200
3550
1300
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
1000
1300
1500

500
1200
3250
1150
1400
1100
1500
4200
0
1000
1300
1300
Project duration
Project cost

26
18100

Project duration
Project cost

25
18750

Table 5.3.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Duration
5
1
5
3
6
5
6
5
6
0
1
2

Project duration
Project cost

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Cost
500
1200
3850
1300
1400
1100
1800
4200
0
1000
1300
1500
24
19150

Duration
5
1
4
3
6
5
5
5
6
0
1
2

Project duration
Project cost

57

Cost
500
1200
4150
1300
1400
1100
2100
4200
0
1000
1300
1500
23
19750

Table 5.3.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

Duration
5
1
4
3
6
4
4
5
6
0
1
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost

Activity
10
20
30
32
40
42
44
50
52a
52b
60
70

500
1200
4150
1300
1400
1500
2400
4200
0
1000
1300
1500

22
20450

Duration
5
1
4
3
6
3
4
5
5
0
1
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
500
1200
4150
1300
1400
1900
2400
4200
750
1000
1300
1500

21
21600

Time cost analysis curve

23000
22000
21000
20000

Cost 19000
18000
17000
16000
20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Duration

Figure 5.3. 2 Time cost analysis curve:

Results of Budget Time Data:

Table 5.3. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:
Budget
Duration
Actual Cost

17500
29
17550

18000
27
17900

18500
25
18750

19000
25
18750

58

19500
23
19750

20000
23
19750

20500
21
21600

21000
21
21600

Budget time analysis curve

30
28
26

Duration

24
22
20
17000

18000

19000

20000

Budget

Figure 5.3. 3 Budget time analysis curve:

59

21000

22000

5.3.4

Details of case study-4:

Figure (5.4.1) illustrates a project case study reported in (Behind, 2011). Table 5.4.1 shows
the activities details of normal and crash duration and the associated normal and crash cost.
The project consists of 17 activities. Cost slope is calculated and is shown in last column of
activity data table.
Table 5.4. 1 Activity data
Activity Name

Predecessor

Normal Time

Crash Time

Normal Cost

Crash Cost

Cost Slope

46

30

7650

9500

116

15

2300

3500

150

30

15

3000

4000

67

16

3500

4500

111

90

60

45000

50000

167

80

50

20500

25000

150

90

60

30000

37000

233

F, G

46

30

11500

15000

219

15

2000

7500

688

H, I

15

10

6000

8000

400

31

3200

5500

96

45

30

6000

7000

67

60

30

5300

7500

73

31

1000

2000

42

14

2200

3000

114

15

4000

5000

125

O, N

15

440

800

45

60

Figure 5.4. 1 Project Network for Project

Results of TCT analysis

CPU TIME: -

0m 0.057s

Table 5.4. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only
Normal duration
Normal cost
Crash duration
Crash cost

304
1,53,590
173
1,78,599

Table 5.4. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:

Duration
Optimum
Cost

304

300

275

250

225

200

175

173

153590

153770

155525

158027

161537

167254

177532

178599

61

Time cost analysis curve

185000
180000
175000
170000
165000

Cost 160000
155000
150000
145000
140000
170

190

210

230

250

270

290

310

Duration

Figure 5.4. 2 Time Cost analysis curve

Table 5.4. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
46
15
30
16
90
80
90
46
15
15
31
45
60
31
14
15
15

Cost
7650
2300
3000
3500
45000
20500
30000
11500
2000
6000
3200
6000
5300
1000
2200
4000
440

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
46
15
30
16
90
80
90
46
15
15
31
45
60
31
14
15
11

Direct Cost : 153590

Direct Cost : 153770

Shortest duration 304

Shortest duration 300

62

Cost
7650
2300
3000
3500
45000
20500
30000
11500
2000
6000
3200
6000
5300
1000
2200
4000
620

Table 5.4.4(Contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
46
15
15
16
90
80
90
46
15
15
25
45
60
31
14
15
7

Cost
7650
2300
4000
3500
45000
20500
30000
11500
2000
6000
3775
6000
5300
1000
2200
4000
800

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
46
15
15
9
90
80
90
46
15
15
7
45
60
31
14
15
7

Direct Cost : 155525

Direct Cost : 158027

Shortest duration 275

Shortest duration 250

Cost
7650
2300
4000
4277.78
45000
20500
30000
11500
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
2200
4000
800

Table 5.4.4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
15
15
7
90
80
90
40
15
15
7
45
60
31
14
14
7

Cost
9500
2300
4000
4500
45000
20500
30000
12812.5
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
2200
4125
800

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
15
15
7
90
80
80
30
15
15
7
45
60
31
9
9
7

Direct Cost : 161537

Direct Cost : 167254

Shortest duration 225

Shortest duration 200

63

Cost
9500
2300
4000
4500
45000
20500
32333.3
15000
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
2771.43
4750
800

Table 5.4.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
9
15
7
90
62
62
30
15
10
7
45
60
31
7
7
7

Cost
9500
3200
4000
4500
45000
23200
36533.3
15000
2000
8000
5500
6000
5300
1000
3000
5000
800

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
7
15
7
90
60
60
30
15
10
7
45
60
31
7
7
7

Direct Cost : 177532

Direct Cost : 178599

Shortest duration 175

Shortest duration 173

Cost
9500
3500
4000
4500
45000
23500
37000
15000
2000
8000
5500
6000
5300
1000
3000
5000
800

Results of Budget Time Data:

Budget
Duration

154000 157000 160000 163000 166000 169000 172000 175000

296
259
232
218
205
195
186
180
Table 5.4. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:

Budget time analysis curve

310
290
270
250

Duration 230
210
190
170
150000 155000 160000 165000 170000 175000 180000

Budget
Figure 5.4. 3 Budget Time Analysis Curve

64

178000
175

Table 5.4. 6 Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
46
15
30
16
90
80
90
46
15
15
31
45
60
31
14
15
7

Cost
7650
2300
3000
3500
45000
20500
30000
11500
2000
6000
3200
6000
5300
1000
2200
4000
800

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
46
15
15
16
90
80
90
46
15
15
9
45
60
31
14
15
7

Direct Cost : 154000

Direct Cost : 157000

Shortest duration 296

Shortest duration 259

Cost
7650
2300
4000
3500
45000
20500
30000
11500
2000
6000
5308.33
6000
5300
1000
2200
4000
800

Table 5.4.6(contd.) Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
15
15
7
90
80
90
46
15
15
7
45
60
31
14
15
7

Cost
9500
2300
4000
4500
45000
20500
30000
11500
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
2200
4000
800

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
15
15
7
90
80
90
33
15
15
7
45
60
31
14
14
7

Direct Cost : 160000

Direct Cost : 163000

Shortest duration 232

Shortest duration 218

65

Cost
9500
2300
4000
4500
45000
20500
30000
14343.8
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
2200
4125
800

Table 5.4.6(contd.) Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
15
15
7
90
80
80
30
15
15
7
45
60
31
14
14
7

Cost
9500
2300
4000
4500
45000
20500
32333.3
15000
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
2200
4125
800

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
15
15
7
90
77
77
30
15
15
7
45
60
31
7
7
7

Direct Cost : 166000

Direct Cost : 169000

Shortest duration 205

Shortest duration 195

Cost
9500
2300
4000
4500
45000
20950
33033.3
15000
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
3000
5000
800

Table 5.4.6(contd.) Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Duration
30
15
15
7
90
68
68
30
15
15
7
45
60
31
7
7
7
Direct Cost : 172000

Cost
9500
2300
4000
4500
45000
22300
35133.3
15000
2000
6000
5500
6000
5300
1000
3000
5000
800

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

Shortest duration 186

Duration
30
14
15
7
90
67
67
30
15
10
7
45
60
31
7
7
7
Direct Cost : 175000
Shortest duration 180

66

Cost
9500
2450
4000
4500
45000
22450
35366.7
15000
2000
8000
5500
6000
5300
1000
3000
5000
800

5.3.5

Details of case study-5:

Figure (5.5.1) illustrates a project case study reported in (Lima, 2006). Table 5.5.1 shows the
activities details of normal and crash duration and the associated normal and crash cost. The
project consists of 13 activities. Cost slope is calculated and is shown in last column of
activity data table.
Table 5.5. 1 Activity Data

Preceded
by
None

12

15

3.5

500

10

20

25

1.25

C, D

10

667

C, D

11

12

C, D

3.5

4.5

500

E, F, G

6.5

500

9.5

750

5.5

500

8.5

750

I, J

2.5

500

L, K

10

12

Activity Name

Normal Time

Crash Time

Normal Cost

Crash Cost

Cost Slope

Results of TCT analysis

CPU TIME: -

0m 0.057s

Table 5.5. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only:
Normal duration
Normal cost
Crash duration
Crash cost

46
98.5
28
117.6
Table 5.5. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:

Duration
Optimum Cost

46
98.5

45
99

Duration
Optimum Cost

36
106

35
107.2

44
99.5
34
108.4

43
100

42
100.7
33
109.6

67

41
101.4
32
110.8

40
102.2
31
112

30
113.3

39
103

38
104
29
114.6

37
105
28
117.6

Time cost analysis curve

120
115
110
105

Cost 100
95
90
85
25

30

35

40

45

50

Duration

Figure 5.5. 1 Time Cost analysis curve

Table 5.5. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines
Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
3
4
3
10
8
4
6
8
5
5
4
2
4

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
5
12
3
20
8
11
3.5
5
8
4
7
2
10
46
98.5

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
3
4
3
10
8
4
6
7
5
5
4
2
4

Project duration
Project cost

68

Cost
5
12
3
20
8
11
3.5
5.5
8
4
7
2
10
45
99.0

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
3
4
3
10
8
4
6
6
5
5
4
2
4

Cost
5
12
3
20
8
11
3.5
6
8
4
7
2
10

Project duration 44
Project cost
99.5

Table 5.5.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
3
4
3
10
8
4
6
5
5
5
4
2
4

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
5
12
3
20
8
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
7
2
10

43
100.0

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
3
4
3
10
7
4
6
5
5
5
4
2
4

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
5
12
3
20
8.7
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
7
2
10

42
100.7

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
3
4
3
10
6
4
6
5
5
5
4
2
4

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
5
12
3
20
9.33333
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
7
2
10

41
101.4

Table 5.5.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
3
4
3
10
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
4

Project duration
Project cost

39
103

Cost
5
12
3
20
9.3
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
10

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
10
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
4

Project duration
Project cost

38
104

69

Cost
6
12
3
20
9.3
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
10

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
10
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
3

Project duration
Project cost

37
105

Cost
6
12
3
20
9.3
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
11

Table 5.5.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
10
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
6
12
3
20
9.3
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
12

36
106

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
10
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
6
12
3
20
9.3
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
12

35
107.2

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
8
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
6
12
3
22.5
9.3
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
12

34
108.4

Table 5.5.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
7
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

33
109.6

Cost
6
12
3
23.75
9.33
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
12

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
6
6
4
6
5
5
5
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

32
110.8

70

Cost
6
12
3
25
9.3
11
3.5
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
12

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
6
5
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

31
112

Cost
6
12
3
25
10
11
4
6.5
8
4
8.5
2
12

Table 5.5.4(contd.) Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
4
3
6
5
4
5
5
4
4
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
6
12
3
25
10
11
4
6.5
8.75
4.5
8.5
2
12

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

30
113.3

Duration
2
4
3
6
5
4
5
5
3
3
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

Cost
6
12
3
25
10
11
4
6.5
9.5
5
8.5
2
12

29
114.6

Activity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Duration
2
3
3
6
5
4
5
5
3
3
2
2
2

Project duration
Project cost

28
117.6

Results of Budget Time Data:

Table 5.5. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:
Budget

99

102

105

108

111

114

117

Duration

45

41

36

35

31

30

28

Budget time analysis curve

45
40

Duration 35
30
25
98

100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118

Budget
Figure 5.5. 2 Budget Time Analysis Curve

71

Cost
6
15
3
25
10
11
4
6.5
9.5
5
8.5
2
12

Concluding Remarks
Results of five case studies have been presented and a comprehensive TCT analysis is done
using the proposed software. The vast spectrum of Time-cost variation as well as budgetshortest duration data has been generated for each case study to develop pareto-optimum
front.

72

CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1Summary
Despite the simplicity of CPM calculations, CPM schedules fails to deliver structured
decision support for projects do not account for practical project constraints, such as deadline
and/or specified budget for expedition of project. Project deadline and additional allocated
budget limits for expedition are practical constraints that exist in most projects. In spite of a
number of formulations for Time Cost Trade-off (TCT) by various researchers the algorithm
has not yet been included in any of the commercial project management software known to
author. Mathematical programming knowledge is necessary to formulate these mathematical
models correctly. Few construction planners are trained to perform this type of formulation,
especially for large networks. The study thus asserts that decision support tools for resolving
TCT analysis in projects are long overdue. It is with this background that this work was
undertaken to develop a stand-alone computer code for scheduling construction project with
inbuilt LP/IP solver. A computer program, using C++ has been developed in this dissertation
work for Linux environment using coin-or open source solver. The proposed computer code
is simple enough to apply. Results on several cases demonstrate the capability of the
proposed algorithm to quickly produce good feasible construction schedule or near optimum
solution if the deadline cannot be achieved.

6.2Conclusion
The time-cost trade-off problem for construction project scheduling has been investigated
since the 1960s. Existing solutions can be classified into two categories, the heuristic and the
mathematical approaches. Heuristic approaches provide good solutions, but do not guarantee
optimal solutions. Mathematical approaches provide better solutions; however, the process of
formulating the objective function and constraints is complex and prone to errors. This
dissertation work presents a computer program to provide an easy-to-use tool to solve timecost trade-off problems using mathematical models. This method takes advantage of linear
programming and integer programming to find the exact solutions. This method, along with
the developed computer program, provides the construction planner with an efficient means
of analysing time-cost trade-off decisions.

73

The proposed model generates the minimum time-cost curve based on different levels of
budget. With the time-cost curve, one can relate the minimum direct cost associated with any
given project duration and determine the crashing strategy accordingly. The minimum timecost curve can be used to determine the optimal project schedule with the minimum total
project cost, which includes direct and indirect costs, as well as liquidated damage or early
bonus as specified in the contract. The selected model, along with developed computer
program, can be applied in practice since it requires relatively cheap and fast computations.
Moreover, the solutions are guaranteed to be globally optimal.

74

CHAPTER 7

SCOPE OF FURTHER WORK

Future research may be conducted in the following directions. First, it may be necessary

to address the stochastic nature of activity duration and cost.

Second, a mix of continuous and discrete time-cost options would lead to a much more

difficult nonlinear combinatorial optimization problem

An underlying assumption in this study is that actual funds to support the project would
never deviate from the original estimate. This assumption is often unrealistic because a
project is generally funded by one or several external financing sources, including
financial institutions, investors, and government, as well as via various financial
alternatives, such as loans, bonds, or stocks. Thus, it is necessary to quantify and
incorporate stochastic nature of budget uncertainty into the time-cost trade-off analysis.

75

REFERENCES
1.

I-Tung Yang, Impact of Budget Uncertainty on Project Time-Cost Trade-off, IEEE

transactions on engineering management, vol. 52, no. 2, may 2005

2.

Ahuja, V., and Thiruvengadam, V. (2004). "Project scheduling and monitoring: current
research status." Construction Innovation, 4(1), 19-31.

3.

Baweja, S. S. (2006). "CPM schedules - Why and how." AACE International

Transactions, PS.22.1- PS.22.5.

4.

Behind, M. B. A. (2011) "Scheduling Project Management Using Crashing CPM

Networks to Get Project Completed on Time & Under Budget". The magazine of
Economics & Administration.

5.

Burns S A, Liu L and Feng CW (1996). The LP/IP hybrid method for construction timecost trade-off analysis. Construction Management and Economics 14(3): 265276.

6.

Chassiakos, A. P., and Sakellaropoulos, S. P. (2005). "Time-cost optimization of

construction projects with generalized activity constraints." Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(10), 1115-1124.

7.

Chassiakos, A. P., Samaras, C. I., and Theodorakopoulos, D. D. (2000)."An integer

programming method for CPM time-cost analysis." Computer Modeling in Engineering
and Sciences, 1(4), 9-18.

8.

De, P., Ghosh, J. B., and Welles, C. E. (1992). Heuristic estimation of the efficient
frontier for a bicriteria scheduling problem, Manage. Sci., vol. 23, pp. 596609.

9.

Deckro, R. F., Hebert, J. E., Verdini, W. A., Grimsrud, P. H. and Venkateshwar, S.

(1995). Nonlinear time/cost tradeoff models in project management, Comput. Ind.
Eng., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 219229, 1995

10.

Elmabrouk, O. M. "A Linear Programming Technique for the Optimization of the

Activities in Maintenance Projects". International Journal of Engineering & Technology
IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01.

11.

Eshtehardian, E., Afshr, A., and Abbasnia, R. (2008). Time-cost optimization: Using
GA and fuzzy sets theory for uncertainties in cost. Constr. Manage. Econ., 26(7), 679
691.

12.

Falk, J. and Horowitz, J. L. (1972). Critical path problems with concave cost time
curves, Manage. Sci., vol. 19, pp. 446455.

13.

Feng, C. W., Liu, L. and S. A. Burns, S. A. (2000). Stochastic construction time-cost

76

tradeoff analysis, Comput, J. Civil Eng., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 117126.
14.

Foldes, S. and Sourmis, F. (1993). PERT and crashing revisited: Mathematical

generalizations, Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 64, pp. 286294.

15.

Fondahl, J.W. (1961). A non-computer approach to the critical path method for the
construction industry. Tech. Rep. No.9, The Construction Inst., Dept. of Civ. Engrg.,
Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.

16.

Franco, E. G., Zurita, F. L., Delgadillo, G. M., 2006 " A genetic algorithm for the
resource constrained project scheduling problem." Report, School of Industrial
Engineering, Universidad de La Sabana.

17.

Galloway, P. D. (2006). "Survey of the construction industry relative to the use of CPM
scheduling for construction projects." Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 132(7), 697711.

18.

Goncalves, J. F., Mendes, J. J. M., Resende, M. G. C., 2006, " A genetic algorithm for
the resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problem." AT&T Labs Research
Technical Report: TD-668LM4, Revised January 20.

19.

Gould, F. E. (2005). Managing the Construction Process: Estimating, Scheduling and

Project Control. Pearson Education, Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.

20.

Halphin, D.W. and Woodhead, R.W. (1998).Construction Management.2nd Ed., John

Wiley &Sons, Inc, New York.

21.

Harris, R.B. (1978), Precedence and arrow networking techniques for construction.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.

22.

Hegazy, T. (1999). Optimization of construction time-cost tradeoff analysis using

genetic algorithms, Canadian J. Civil Eng., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 685697.

23.

Hegazy, T. (2002).Computer-Based Construction Project Management. Prentice Hall,

Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.

24.

Hegazy T., and Wail Menesi (2011) Heuristic Method for Satisfying Both Deadlines
and Resource Constraints J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 138(06), 688-696.

25.

Hillier, F. S., and Lieberman, G. J. 2001. Introduction to operations research, 7th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York.

26.

Hinze, J. W., 2008, Construction planning and scheduling, third edition, Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

77

27.

Jackson, 2004; Son, J., and Mattila, K. (2004). Binary resource leveling model:
Activity splitting allowed. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(6), 887894.

28.

Kamarainen, O., Ek, V., Nieminen, K., Ruuth, S., 2000, " Large scale generalized
resource constrained scheduling problems: Genetic Algorithm approach. Imperial
College, London, UK.

29.

Kamburowski, J. (1997) New validations of PERT times, Int. J. Manage. Sci., vol.
25, no. 3, pp. 323328.

30.

Kelly, J. E. (1961). Critical path planning and scheduling: Mathematical basis, Oper.
Res., vol. 9, pp. 296320.

31.

Kerzner, H., 2006, Project management, A system approach to planning,

scheduling and controlling, Ninth edition, John wiley& Sons Inc.

32.

Leu, S. S., Chen, A. T. and Yang, C. H. (2001). A GA-based fuzzy optimal model for
construction time-cost tradeoff, Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 4758.

33.

Li, H. and Love, P. (1997). Using improved genetic algorithms to facilitate time cost
optimization, J. Construction Eng. Manage., vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 233237.

34.

Liberatore, M. J., Pollack-Johnson, B., and Smith, C.A. (2001). "Project management in
construction: Software use and research directions." Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 127(2), 101107.

35.

Lima, M. B. F., Silva, L. B. and Vieira, R. J. (2006) "Project crashing and Costs Laws
in the Knowledge age". Third International Conference on Production Research
Americas Region 2006 (ICPR-AM06).

36.

Liu, L. Burns, S. C. and Feng, C. W. (1995). Construction time-cost trade-off analysis

using LP/IP hybrid method, J. Construction Eng. Manage., vol. 121, no. 4, pp. 446
454.

37.

Lu, M., and Li, H. (2003). Resource-activity critical-path method for construction
planning. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(4), 412420.

38.

Mantel, S., Meredith, J., Shafer, S., & Sutton, M. (2011). Project management in
practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Publishing.

39.

Moselhi, O. (1993), Schedule compression using the direct stiffness method. Can. J.
Civ. Engrg., 20(1), 65-72.

40.

Moussourakis, J. and Haksever, C. (2007) "Models for Accurate Computation of

Earliest and Latest Start Times and Optimal Compression in Project Networks".

78

10.1061/ ASCE 0733-9364 2007 133:8 600.

41.

Murty, K. G. (1992). Network Programming. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

42.

Patrick, C. 2004, Construction project planning and scheduling, Pearson Education,

Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

43.

Phillips, D. T., A. Ravindran, and J. J. Solberg. Operations Research: Principles and

Practice. John Wiley & Sons, LTD, NY, 1976.

44.

Prager, W. (1963). A structural sethod of computing project cost polygons. Mgmt.

Sci., 9(3), 394-404.

45.

Ragsdale, C. (2003). A new approach to implementing project networks in

spreadsheets. INFORMS Transaction on Education, 3(3), 76-85.

46.

Reda, R.M., and Carr, R.I. (1989). Time-cost trade-off among related activities. J.
Constr. Engrg. And Mgmt., ASCE, 115(3), 475-486.

47.

Render, B., and R. M. Stair. (1991). Introduction to Management Science. Allyn &
Bacon, Massachusetts.

48.

Robinson, D.R. (1975). A dynamic programming solution to cost-time trade-off for

CPM. Mgmt. Sci., 22(2), 158-166.

49.

Rogalska, M., Boejko, W., and Hejducki, Z. (2008). Time/cost optimization using
hybrid evolutionary algorithm in construction project scheduling. Autom. Constr.,
18(1), 2431.

50.

Russell, J. S., and Radtke, M. W. (1991)."Sub-contractor failure, Case history. "AACE

International Transactions, E.02.1-E.02.6.

51.

Schexnayder, C., and Mayo, R., 2004, Construction Management fundamentals,

McGraw Hill, New York.

52.

Senouci, A. B. and Adeli, H. (2001). Resource scheduling using neural dynamics

model of Adeli and Park, J. Construction Eng. Manage., vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 2834.

53.

Senouci, A. B., and Eldin, N. N. (2004)."Use of genetic algorithms in resource

scheduling of construction projects." Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 130(6), 869 877.

54.

Siemens, N. (1971). A simple CPM time-cost tradeoff algorithm, Manage. Sci., vol.
17, no. 6, pp. 354363.

55.

Sriprasert, E., Dawood, N., 2002, Next Generation Of Construction Planning And
Control, System, Proceedings IGLC-10, Gramado, Brazil.
79

56.

Stevens, J. D., 1990, Techniques for Construction Network Scheduling, Stanford

University.

57.

Taylor III, B. W., Introduction to Management Science (5thed.). Prentice Hall, NJ,
1996.

58.

Vrat, P. and Kriengkrairut, P. (1986). A goal programming model for project crashing
with piecewise-linear time-cost tradeoffs, Eng. Costs Prod. Econ., vol. 10, pp. 161
172.

59.

Williams, H. P. Model Building in Mathematical Programming (4thed.). John Wiley &

Sons, LTD, NY, 1999.

60.

Wysocki, R., 2007, Effective project management, Fourth edition, Wiley publishing,
Inc., Indiana.

61.

Zahraie, B., and Tavakolan, M. (2009). Stochastic time-cost-resource utilization

optimization using nondominated sorting genetic algorithm and discrete fuzzy sets. J.
Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(11), 11621171.

62.

Zeinalzadeh, A. (2011). "An Application of Mathematical Model to Time-cost Trade off

Problem". Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(7): 208-214.

63.

Zheng, D. X. M., Ng, S. T, and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2004). Applying a genetic

algorithm-based multi objective approach for time-cost optimization. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 130(2), 168 176.

80

Table of Contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................2
1.1

General........................................................................................................................2

1.2

Unrealistic Assumptions of CPM................................................................................3

1.3

Aims and Objectives....................................................................................................4

1.4

Research Methodology................................................................................................4

1.5

Dissertation Outline.....................................................................................................4

CHAPTER 2 Construction Projects Planning and Scheduling..................................................6

2.1

Construction Project management...............................................................................6

2.2

Projects planning and scheduling................................................................................6

2.3

Construction network scheduling................................................................................7

2.3.1

Definitions............................................................................................................7

2.3.2

Advantages of network scheduling techniques....................................................7

2.3.3

Traditional scheduling techniques........................................................................8

2.3.4

Network Definitions...........................................................................................11

2.3.5

Various Construction project constraints...........................................................12

CHAPTER 3 Time Cost Trade-off in CPM.............................................................................14

3.1

Introduction...............................................................................................................14

3.2

Project time-cost relationship....................................................................................14

3.3

Existing Techniques for Construction Time-Cost Trade-Off Analysis......................15

3.4

Methodology Adopted...............................................................................................19

3.5

Concluding Remark:..................................................................................................20

CHAPTER 4 LP Formulations for Time-Cost Trade-Off Analysis.........................................22

4.1

Introduction...............................................................................................................22

4.2

Linear Integer Programming Model..........................................................................22

4.2.1

Deadline Problem...............................................................................................22
81

4.2.2

Model Formulations...........................................................................................24

4.3

Minimum Time-Cost Curve and Total Cost Curve...................................................27

4.4

Input and Procedure...................................................................................................28

4.5

Validation of proposed computer code......................................................................29

4.5.1

Illustrative Example for LP formulations...........................................................29

4.6

Need for Computer Code...........................................................................................32

4.7

Computer Implementation.........................................................................................32

4.7.1

Data Input...........................................................................................................33

CHAPTER 5 Results and Discussions.....................................................................................35

5.1

Introduction...............................................................................................................35

5.2

Presentation of results:..............................................................................................36

5.3

Details of case studies:..............................................................................................36

5.3.1

Details of case study-1:......................................................................................37

5.3.2

Details of case study-2:......................................................................................44

5.3.3

Details of case study-3:......................................................................................48

5.3.4

Details of case study-4:......................................................................................54

5.3.5

Details of case study-5:......................................................................................61

CHAPTER 6 Summary and Conclusions................................................................................67

6.1

Summary....................................................................................................................67

6.2

Conclusion.................................................................................................................67

CHAPTER 7 Scope of further work........................................................................................69

References................................................................................................................................70

82

List of Figur
Figure 2.1 Gantt chart Diagram.................................................................................................8
Figure 2.2 AOA Diagram...........................................................................................................9
Figure 2.3 AON Diagram...........................................................................................................9
Figure 2.4 AON symbols..........................................................................................................12
Figure 3.1 Project time-cost relationship.................................................................................15
Figure 3.2 Manual TCT computations (conventional heuristic method).................................20
Figure 4.1 Piecewise Linear approximation of time cost trade-off for an activity..................23
Figure 4.2 Example Network...................................................................................................31
Figure 4.2 Example Network...................................................................................................31
Y
Figure 5.1. 1 Project Network for Project................................................................................38
Figure 5.1. 2 Time-Cost Curve.................................................................................................41
Figure 5.1. 3 Budget-Duration Curve......................................................................................43

Figure 5.2. 1 Project Network for Project................................................................................44

Figure 5.2. 2 Time cost analysis curve.....................................................................................46
Figure 5.2. 3 Budget time analysis curve.................................................................................47

Figure 5.3. 1 Project Network for Project................................................................................49

Figure 5.3. 2 Time cost analysis curve:....................................................................................52
Figure 5.3. 3 Budget time analysis curve:................................................................................53

Figure 5.4. 1 Project Network for Project................................................................................55

Figure 5.4. 2 Time Cost analysis curve....................................................................................56
Figure 5.4. 3 Budget Time Analysis Curve.............................................................................58

Figure 5.5. 1 Time Cost analysis curve....................................................................................62

Figure 5.5. 2 Budget Time Analysis Curve..............................................................................65

83

List of Table
Table 3.1 Existing techniques for Time-Cost Trade-Off analysis............................................18
Table 3.2 Precedence relation, Time- cost data and resource requirement of example problem
..................................................................................................................................................19
Table 4.1 Activity data for illustrative example.......................................................................30
Table 4.2 Data input file for case study 2 (Chapter V)............................................................33
Y
Table 5.1. 1 Activity data.........................................................................................................37
Table 5.1. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering Indirect cost 25000/day:......38
Table 5.1. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines..........................................38
Table 5.1. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines..........................................39
Table 5.1. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various level of budget:........41
Table 5.1. 6 Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
..................................................................................................................................................42
Table 5.2. 1 Activity data.........................................................................................................44
Table 5.2. 2Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only:....................45
Table 5.2. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:........................................45
Table 5.2. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines..........................................45
Table 5.2. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:..........46
Table 5.3. 1 Activity data.........................................................................................................48
Table 5.3. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only:...................49
Table 5.3. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:........................................49
Table 5.3. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines.........................................50
Table 5.3. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:.........52

Table 5.4. 1 Activity data........................................................................................................54

Table 5.4. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only...................55
Table 5.4. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:........................................55
Table 5.4. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines..........................................56
Table 5.4. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:..........58

84

Table 5.4. 6 Schedule of activities for different shortest durations for various levels of budget
..................................................................................................................................................59

Table 5.5. 1 Activity Data.........................................................................................................61

Table 5.5. 2 Outline of optimum project schedules considering direct cost only:...................61
Table 5.5. 3 Summary of time-cost analysis for various deadlines:.........................................61
Table 5.5. 4 Schedule of activities for different specific deadlines.........................................62
Table 5.5. 5 Summary of budget-shortest duration analysis for various budget levels:..........65

85