Time–Cost Optimization Model

Considering Float-Consumption Impact

Rana A. Al Haj 1 and Sameh M. El-Sayegh, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: The main objectives of construction projects are completing the project on time and within budget. Typically, there is a trade-
off between time and cost. Time loss is costly and time savings can provide benefits to all the parties involved in the project. Time–cost
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

optimization is essential for construction projects. The objective of time–cost optimization is to determine the optimum project duration
corresponding to the minimum total cost. This is accomplished by shortening the duration of critical activities to reduce the overall
project duration. Time–cost optimization techniques result in reducing the available total float for noncritical activities, and thus, reduce
the schedule flexibility. This paper presents a nonlinear-integer programming model that is developed to solve the time–cost optimi-
zation problem taking into account the impact of total float loss. The model uses What’sBest solver to find an efficient solution to
the optimization problem while incorporating the total float-loss cost calculated according to the float-commodity approach. The
results are significant and allow project managers to exercise new trade-offs between time, cost, and flexibility, which will ultimately
improve the chances of achieving project objectives. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000966. © 2015 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction
The main objectives of construction projects are completing the
project on time and within budget. Typically, there is a trade-
off between time and cost. As the project’s duration is shortened,
the direct cost increases while the indirect cost decreases. Contrac-
tors and clients strive to optimize the project duration and cost to
maximize the return (Ng and Zhang 2008). Project managers are
frequently required to make time–cost trade-offs (Liu and Rahbar
2004). Time–cost analysis is an important element of project
scheduling (Chassiakos and Sakellaropoulos 2005). Charoenngam
and Popescu (1995) defined time–cost trade-off as a scheduling
technique using the critical-path method by which the project
duration is shortened with a minimum of added cost. Time–cost
trade-off allows for accelerating the project schedule by expediting
the construction process and reducing the activities’ durations to
meet owner’s convenience and expectations and/or to recover
the lost time when the project is behind schedule. Shortening ac-
tivity duration can be accomplished through subcontracting, work-
ing overtimes or multiple shifts, or adding additional resources
such as extra laborers or extra machinery (Gray and Larson
2008). All these methods, however, result in an increase in the
direct cost.
The main objective of time–cost trade-off is to determine the
optimum project duration associated with the minimum total cost
(direct and indirect costs). Typically, the project’s total cost de-
creases through crashing critical activities until it reaches a certain
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, American Univ. of
Sharjah, P.O. Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: rana
.elhaj.rh@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, American Univ. of
Sharjah, P.O. Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (corresponding
author). E-mail: selsayegh@aus.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 8, 2014; approved on No-
vember 19, 2014; published online on January 5, 2015. Discussion period
open until June 5, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/04015001(10)/$25.00.
project duration where the total cost starts to increase. This
is called the optimum duration point, which is associated with
the minimum total cost. For project managers, this is the preferred
duration for the project as it allows project completion at the
minimum total cost. In addition, early completion allows project
managers to divert resources to other projects, undertake new
projects, increase reputation, and improve relationships with the
client.
Construction projects are risky. There is an increasing interest
in managing construction risk in the wake of the global financial
difficulties. Risk quantification and minimization is one of the pri-
mary goals of construction research (Isidore and Back 2002). Risk
quantification in construction schedules is usually performed us-
ing Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). When a project is scheduled,
the normal schedule will have certain risks that are measured by
the probability of completing the project on time. As the project
duration is shortened, to reduce total cost, the total float is lost
resulting in more critical or nearly critical activities. This, in turn,
results in reducing the probability of completing the project on
time and increases the risk of schedule delays. There is a need
to incorporate that extra risk into the time–cost trade-off problem.
This will result in a more reliable project schedule.
The time–cost trade-off topic has been investigated since the
1960s with the aim of developing several methods that can opti-
mize the project cost and duration. However, existing methods
ignored the effect of total float loss resulting from schedule com-
pression. Time–cost trade-off techniques result in reducing the
available total float for noncritical activities, and thus, reduce
the schedule flexibility and increase the risk of project delays.
Therefore, there is a need for a new model for time–cost trade-
off that can provide an optimum time–cost value for a project tak-
ing into consideration the effect of total float loss. The research
hypothesis is that the new optimum schedule will be at a higher
duration and cost but with lower risk. This presents a new trade-
off between time, cost, and risk. The research described in this
paper is aimed at developing a new model to solve the time–
cost trade-off problem taking into account the total float-loss
impact.

© ASCE 04015001-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.

 Time–Cost Trade-Off Techniques
Time–cost trade-off techniques can be generally categorized into
the following three groups: manual, mathematical (optimization),
and metaheuristic methods.
Manual Methods
Charoenngam and Popescu (1995) presented a manual procedure
for time–cost trade-off that involves finding the optimum duration
through shortening critical activities with the minimal increase in
cost per unit time. Hinze (2008) explained a manual procedure for
time–cost trade-off that involves finding the optimum duration and
cost based on a standard systematic computation method that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
uses activity-crashing slopes and link lags. Liu and Rahbar (2004)
established the maximal flow–minimal cut technique to solve the
optimization problem manually. This method is based on maximal
flow–minimal cut theory that is used when several compression sets
are required for review; or in other words, when multiple critical
paths with interrelated activities occur.
Mathematical (Optimization) Methods
Several researchers adopted mathematical techniques to solve the
optimization problem. Perera (1980) applied linear programming to
solve projects’ time–cost trade-off problems with overlapping prec-
edence networks. Cusack (1985) used integer linear programming
to solve the time–cost trade-off problem. Liu et al. (1995) suggested
the use of linear and integer programming (LP/IP) models to solve
optimization problems. Deckro et al. (1995) presented a series of
nonlinear time–cost trade-off models to solve the optimization
problem in construction projects by representing the time–cost
relationships through nonlinear quadratic functions depending
on the project case. Burns et al. (1996) developed a LP/IP algorithm
for time–cost trade-off. Islam et al. (2004) proposed a linear algo-
rithm model to solve the optimization problem, and Chassiakos
and Sakellaropoulos (2005) suggested solving the optimization
problem using a linear/linear-integer approach while incorporating
the project characteristics into the optimization process to produce
more realistic results. Such characteristics include generalized prec-
edence relationships between activities, external time constraints,
activity-planning constraints, and bonuses/penalties. Moussourakis
and Haksever (2007) proposed a zero–one mixed-integer model to
solve the optimization problem, while Klansek and Psunder (2008)
used a nonlinear programming algorithm.
Metaheuristic Methods
Recently, many researchers attempted using metaheuristic tech-
niques to solve the time–cost trade-off problem to reduce the
calculation time. Metaheuristic techniques are known as global
heuristic techniques that apply heuristics to analyze and solve
the optimum or near-optimum solutions. Li and Love (1997) sug-
gested some improvements over the basic genetic algorithm (GA)
for increasing the efficiency and reducing the computational time
involved when finding the optimum solution for the time–cost
trade-off. Leu and Yang (1999) used GA to develop a multicriteria
computational optimal scheduling model that integrates the time–
cost trade-off, resource-limited, and resource-leveling models. Que
(2001) proposed a model that uses the GA optimization technique
that takes care of all scheduling parameters to ensure realistic re-
sults. Castro-Lacouture et al. (2009) used fuzzy logic to produce
construction schedules with restrictions on time, cost, and material,
and incorporated the time–cost trade-off into the schedule assuming
linear-fuzzy relations. Ng and Zhang (2008) validated the use of
© ASCE 04015001-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.
ant-colony optimization technique to solve optimization or sched-
ule-compressing problems. Hazir et al. (2011) developed heuristic
and exact algorithms to solve discrete time–cost trade-off problems
using Tabu search by formulating a robust discrete time–cost trade-
off problem with three alternative optimization models that as-
sumes interval uncertainty to be the unknown cost parameters.
Zhang and Li (2010) and Yang (2007) used particle swarm opti-
mization techniques to solve the time–cost trade-off problem.
Geem (2010) was able to solve the time–cost trade-off problem
using a phenomenon-mimicking algorithm, harmony search. This
algorithm, compared with other algorithms such as the GA and
ant-colony optimization algorithm, performed better with a higher
convergence speed and a smaller area search. Sonmez and Bettemir
(2012) solved the discrete time–cost trade-off problem by the im-
plementation of a hybrid strategy of GAs, simulated annealing, and
quantum-simulated annealing techniques to achieve the strengths
of several algorithms.
Methods Involving Other Parameters
Other researchers included additional parameters to the time–cost
trade-off problem. Kim et al. (2012) proposed a practical approach
to incorporate quality into the trade-off problem. Sunde and
Lichtenberg (1995) incorporated the time value of money. To ac-
commodate the uncertainty in construction projects, new methods
were developed and referred to as stochastic time–cost trade-off
methods. Eshtehardian et al. (2008) emphasized the need to incor-
porate uncertainties in the time–cost trade-off problem. Feng et al.
(2000) developed a stochastic time–cost trade-off approach for con-
struction projects. Isidore and Back (2001) proposed an improved
model for the least-cost scheduling technique in which variability
of activities in terms of cost and time is taken into consideration.
Yang (2005) proposed a chance-constrained programming model to
incorporate the variability of funding and then translate it into a
corresponding deterministic value at a predefined confidence level.
The previously mentioned time–cost trade-off techniques share
one thing in common. They ignore the impact of total float loss
resulting from shortening project duration. Adding the total float-
loss impact to the time–cost trade-off analysis will provide a modi-
fied logical approach for decision making to account for risks as-
sociated with total float loss in noncritical activities and will
improve the reliability and effectiveness of the crashing decision.
Float-Consumption Impact
The critical-path method is the most commonly used method
for scheduling construction projects. The critical paths consist of
activities that have zero total float. Total float is defined as the
amount of time that an activity can be delayed without delaying
the whole project. Total float is shared among the activities on
the same path. Free float, by contrast, is available to the particular
activity. Charoenngam and Popescu (1995) defined free float as
“the amount of time by which the finish time of an activity may
exceed its earliest finish time without increasing the earliest start
time of any other activity immediately following.” Compared with
total float, the use of the free float is rather limited. Free float can be
used for resource-leveling applications. Al-Gahtani and Mohan
(2005) emphasized that the float on noncritical activities leads
to efficient resource utilization. Total float represents the flexibility
in the construction schedule. Total float is an important scheduling
element that is used by contractors to change the start of noncritical
activities for resource-management purposes and for time–cost op-
timization. The amount of float is essential for resource leveling
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 and time–cost trade-off (Ammar 2003). Minimizing the float loss
was the main criterion used by Moselhi and Lorterapong (1993) to
evaluate the performance of several heuristics for resource sched-
uling. The total float can also be used by owners to accommodate
change orders. De La Garza et al. (2007) recognized that total float
is an asset for both owners and contractors. Sakka and El-Sayegh
(2007) realized the impact associated with total float loss in non-
critical activities due to delays in construction projects and how
such delays are perceived as one of the complicated delays to assess
on project’s duration and cost. Gong and Rowings (1995) believed
that there is a safe float range that can be used by project parties so
as to minimize risks associated with delays in noncritical activity
based on a time-disturbance analysis over the project schedule.
De La Garza et al. (1991) identified the total float of each activity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
as a commodity or product that can be traded between the owner
and the contractor based on a relationship that assumes any loss in
total float or schedule flexibility has to be replaced with monetary
contingencies. De La Garza et al. (2007) later argued that float can
be allocated between project parties based on a preagreed ratio
(e.g., a 50=50 ratio). Al-Gahtani (2009) mentioned that total float
has to be assigned to parties based on the amount of risk they en-
counter in the project, as “the party who has the greatest risk in a
project should be entitled to float ownership and deserves compen-
sation from other project parties who increase the risk associated
with project by consuming the float” (Al-Gahtani 2009). Several
approaches were also developed to allocate and manage total float
over the years. Such approaches include the owner ownership
approach, the contractor ownership approach, the bar approach, the
day-by-day approach, the preallocation of total float approach,
the project-float approach, and allocating float to individual activ-
ities along a path of activities approach.
In this paper, the float-commodity approach, suggested by De
La Garza et al. (1991), is selected to quantify the additional cost
resulting from the loss of total float. This additional cost is incor-
porated into the proposed optimization model. Incorporating the
effect of total float loss into the optimization process will serve
as a new criterion that improves the reliability and effectiveness
of the crashing decision and provides a modified logical approach
for decision making.
Proposed Time–Cost Optimization Model
A nonlinear-integer programming (NLIP) model is developed to
solve the optimization problem while taking into account the total
float-loss cost. The total float cost per day for each noncritical ac-
tivity is calculated according to Eq. (1) established by De La Garza
et al. (1991)
LFC − EFC
Total float cost per day ¼ ð1Þ
TF
where EFC = early finish cost; LFC= late finish cost; and TF =
total float.
The EFC represents the best cost estimate assuming normal
conditions for the noncritical activity. In this case, flexibility
and resources are assumed to be available as needed. The LFC rep-
resents the cost at abnormal conditions as the EF date moves into
the LF date due to unforeseen events. In this case, flexibility is as-
sumed to be consumed and efficiency is accomplished at LF times
with an increase in the cost (De La Garza et al. 1991). The TF
represents the total float available for the noncritical activity.
The NLIP model is formulated under the following assumptions:
• A uniform float-cost distribution per day throughout the entire
activity’s duration.
© ASCE 04015001-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.
• EFC is assumed to be equal to the normal direct cost (mean) as
the normal direct cost represents the best estimate assuming nor-
mal conditions for the activity including starting and finishing at
their earliest dates.
• LFC is assumed to be the value representing abnormal condi-
tions where the activity finishes at its latest finish dates.
• Activities’ durations are assumed to be in integer numbers.
Theoretically, the resulting time–cost optimization curve based
on the proposed model will have a shape similar to that of the time–
cost optimization curve without total float-cost impact, but it will be
shifted further above due to the increased total cost. Thus, the op-
timum point is assumed to be found at a higher cost and duration
compared with the original optimum point. This is due to the fact
that the proposed model incorporates the effect of total float loss on
project cost.
Optimization Model Formulation
The proposed NLIP model is used to find the minimum total project
cost associated with the optimum duration. The nonlinearity arises
from the constraints over activities’ relations and precedence.
Problem Parameters
Let I = a set that comprises all project activities, where project ac-
tivities are denoted by the symbol iϵI, and i ¼ 1,2; 3; : : : ; n; P = a
set that comprises critical activities, where critical activities are de-
noted by the symbol pϵP, and p ¼ 1,2; 3; : : : ; nc; Q = a set that
comprises noncritical activities, where noncritical activities are de-
noted by the symbol qϵQ, and q ¼ 1,2; 3; : : : ; nn; TC = project
total cost; IDC = project indirect cost; COH = project overhead cost
per day; NCi = direct (normal) cost of activity i; CCi = crash cost of
activity i; faq = original total float of noncritical activity q; f bq =
current total float of noncritical activity q; FUCq = total float unit
cost of noncritical activity q; LFCq = late finish cost of noncritical
activity q; EFCq = early finish cost of noncritical activity q; CUCi =
crash unit cost of activity i (crashing slope); ΔDC = extra direct
cost due to crashing; X T = project’s targeted completion time; xi =
duration of activity i; ximin = minimum (crash) duration of activity i;
ximax = maximum (normal) duration of activity i; and LT i;j = lag
time between activity i and the succeeding activity j.
Problem Decision Variables
DT = project duration; ESi = early start time of activity i; EFi =
early finish time of activity i; LSi = late start time of activity i;
LFi = late finish time of activity i; and xi = duration of activity i.
Problem Constraints
The aforementioned decision variables should satisfy the following
three types of constraints: the activities’ duration constraint, the ac-
tivities’ logic constraint, and the targeted project-completion-date
constraint.
Activities’ Duration Constraint
Each activity has a minimum and maximum duration. The maxi-
mum duration corresponds to the normal duration while the mini-
mum duration corresponds to the crash duration. Eq. (2) ensures
that the activity duration remains within the allowed limits.
Eq. (3) is used to ensure that noncritical activities cannot be crashed
xp min ≤ xp ≤ xp max ð2Þ
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 where xp ≥ 0; xpmin ≥ 0; xpmax ≥ 0; and xpmin ≤ xpmax The SS relationship is defined as follows:
xq ¼ xq max ð3Þ LFi ≤ LSj − LT ij þ xi ði; jÞ ∀ jSSij ¼ 1 ð12Þ

where xq ≥ 0 and xqmax ≥ 0. The SF relationship is defined as follows:

LFi ≤ LFj þ xj − LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jSFij ¼ 1 ð13Þ
Activities’ Logic Constraint
The FF relationship is defined as follows:
Klansek and Psunder (2012) developed generalized precedence
equations and used binary coefficients to indicate whether a rela- LFi ≤ LFj − LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jFFij ¼ 1 ð14Þ
tionship exists or not. In this proposed model, a similar approach
was used and it was extended to new formulations related to the Once the LF is calculated, the LS is calculated using Eq. (15)
backward pass. Each project activity is related to its successors
through at least one of four relationship types, namely, finish to
LSi ¼ LFi − xi ð15Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

start (FS), start to start (SS), finish to finish (FF), or start to finish
(SF). To use the correct constraint, corresponding to the right re-
lationship, 0–1 coefficients are introduced to indicate whether the Targeted Project-Completion-Date Constraint
relationship exists or not. Considering activity i as the predecessor
and j as the successor, j ∈ succðiÞ, these coefficients are FSij , SSij , The project duration should meet the targeted completion time, if
FFij , and SFij . During the forward pass, there is a need to calculate specified [Eq. (16)]
the ES and EF of all activities in the network. A dummy start
DT ≤ X T ð16Þ
activity needs to be included to provide the starting point of the
network. The early start (ES0 ) of the first activity should be set
to 0 according to Eq. (4)
Objective Function
ES0 ¼ 0 ð4Þ
The objective of the optimization model is to minimize the total
cost of the project. The total project cost includes the indirect cost,
The early start (ESj ) of activity j is calculated as the maximum
the normal direct cost, the extra direct cost due to crashing critical
value based on the constraints in Eqs. (5)–(8).
activities, and the extra cost resulting from float loss in noncritical
The FS relationship is defined as follows:
activities. Eq. (17) is used to calculate the project’s indirect cost.
ESj ≥ EFi þ LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jFSij ¼ 1 ð5Þ IDC ¼ COH × DT ð17Þ

The SS relationship is defined as follows: where IDC = total indirect cost of the project; COH = overhead
(indirect) cost per day; and DT = total project duration.
ESj ≥ ESi þ LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jSSij ¼ 1 ð6Þ Eq. (18) is used to calculate the project’s total direct cost
X
n
The SF relationship is defined as follows: DC ¼ NCi ð18Þ
i¼1
ESj ≥ ESi − xj þ LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jSFij ¼ 1 ð7Þ
where DC = total direct cost of the project; NCi = normal cost of
The FF relationship is defined as follows: activity i; and n = number of activities.
To calculate the extra direct cost due to crashing, there is a need
ESj ≥ EFi − xj þ LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jFFij ¼ 1 ð8Þ to calculate the crash unit cost (CUC) for each activity. This is
calculated using Eq. (19)

Once the ES is calculated, the EF is calculated using Eq. (9) CCi − NCi
CUCi ¼ ð19Þ
xi max − xi min
EFi ¼ ESi þ xi ð9Þ
where CUCi = crash unit cost of activity i; CCi = crash cost of
To ensure that there is only one activity without successors, an- activity i; NCi = normal direct cost of activity i; ximax = maximum
other dummy activity (activity END) is added. The project duration (normal) duration of activity i; and ximin = minimum (crash) dura-
is calculated as the EF of the last activity according to Eq. (10). tion of activity i.
At the same time, the LF of the last activity is set as its EF. Eq. (20) is used to calculate the extra direct cost due to crashing
(ΔDC)
DT ¼ LFEND ¼ EFEND ð10Þ X
n
ΔDC ¼ CUCi × ðxi max − xi Þ ð20Þ
i¼1
During the backward pass, there is a need to calculate the LS
and LF of all activities in the network. The late finish (LFi ) of where ΔDC = extra direct cost due to crashing; CUCi = crash unit
activity i is calculated as the minimum value based on the cost of activity i; ximax = normal duration of activity i; and xi =
constraints in Eqs. (11)–(14). current duration of activity i.
The FS relationship is defined as follows: To calculate the extra cost due to float loss, there is a need to
calculate the float unit cost for each noncritical activity. This is
LFi ≤ LSj − LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jFSij ¼ 1 ð11Þ calculated using Eq. (21)

© ASCE 04015001-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.

 Table 1. Project Normal and Crash Durations and Costs
Normal Crash Normal Crash Duration Duration
Activity duration duration cost cost CUC TF EFC LFC FUC mean standard deviation
A 3 2 400 430 30 6 400 460 10 3 1.2
B 4 2 1,020 1,100 40 0 — — — 4 3.14
C 2 2 350 350 — 2 350 386 18 2 1.8
D 7 5 1,250 1,300 25 0 — — — 7 1.25
E 5 3 825 895 35 0 — — — 5 1
F 6 3 610 700 30 6 610 742 22 6 2.3
G 4 2 430 490 30 0 — — — 4 2.5
H 5 2 525 660 45 2 525 555 15 5 1.5
I 3 2 390 410 20 2 390 440 25 3 0.5
J 6 3 615 765 50 2 615 655 20 6 1.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

LFCq − EFCq fbq = current total float of noncritical activity q; and nn = number
FUCq ¼ ð21Þ
Faq of noncritical activities.
The objective function [Eq. (24)] can now be written by com-
where FUCq = float unit cost of noncritical activity q; LFCq = late bining Eqs. (17), (18), (20), and (23), which results in a general
finish cost of noncritical activity q; EFCq = early finish cost of equation [Eq. (24)] for the total project cost.
noncritical activity q; and Faq = original total float of noncritical Minimize TC
activity q. X 
X n n
Eq. (22) is used to calculate the current total float of the non- TC ¼ ðCOH × DT Þ þ ðNCi Þ þ CUCi × ðxi max − xi Þ
critical activities i¼1 i¼1
X
nn
fbq ¼ LFq − EFq ð22Þ þ FUCq × ðfaq − f bq Þ ð24Þ
q¼1
where fbq = current total float of noncritical activity q; LFq = late
finish of noncritical activity q; and EFq = early finish of noncritical
activity q. Model Application Example
Eq. (23) is then used to calculate the extra cost due to float loss
X
nn The aforementioned formulation for the time–cost optimization
FLC ¼ FUCq × ðf aq − fbq Þ ð23Þ problem considering total float cost can be solved using any avail-
q¼1 able optimization packages. In this paper, What’sBest solver 11.0
is used. What’sBest is an add-in to Microsoft Excel that can sup-
where FLC = float-loss cost; FUCq = float unit cost of noncritical port building a variety of optimization models such as linear, non-
activity q; faq = original total float of noncritical activity q; linear, quadratic, and integer models within a Microsoft Excel

Fig. 1. Application example network diagram

© ASCE 04015001-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.

 spreadsheet. One advantage of the proposed model is its flexibility
and ability to solve the optimization problem with and without
the total float-cost impact. This gives decision makers the ability
to choose the solution needed based on the project’s nature and
circumstances.
The application example is adopted from Isidore and Back
(2001) and reproduced in Table 1. Table 1 lists the durations and
costs of activities in normal and crash cases, along with the EF and
LF costs and total float unit costs of the application example. The
last two columns represent the mean and standard deviation of
the duration for each activity. Although these are not used in the
model application, they are used later to validate the model and
show the effect on project risk. The EF cost and the LF cost are
assumed and added to the example. The total float unit cost is cal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1 shows the network diagram for the example project.
Based on normal duration for all project activities, the normal
project duration is calculated to be 20 days. The model, set up
in Microsoft Excel, is shown in Fig. 2 and explained as follows.
The network is developed and the logic constraints, as presented
earlier, are added. For activity A, for example, the normal duration
is 3 days and it has two predecessors (F and B) with FS relation-
ships. Applying the precedence constraint for the FS relation based
on Eq. (5)
ESj ≥ EFi þ LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jFSij ¼ 1
ESA ≥ EFF þ LT FA and ESA ≥ EFB þ LT BA
ESA ≥ 6 þ 0 and ESA ≥ 4 þ 0

culated using Eq. (21). For example, the total float unit cost for
activity C is calculated as follows: Therefore, ESA ¼ 6.
The early finish (EFA ) of activity A is then calculated using
FUCC ¼ ðUS$386 − US$350Þ=2 ¼ US$18=day Eq. (9)

The CUC is calculated using Eq. (19). For example, the CUC for EFi ¼ ESi þ xi
activity D is calculated as follows: EFA ¼ ESA þ xA
CUCD ¼ ðUS$1,300 − US$1,250Þ=ð7 − 5Þ ¼ US$25=day EFA ¼ 6 þ 3 ¼ 9

Fig. 2. Model set up using Microsoft Excel and What’sBest

© ASCE 04015001-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.

 Similarly, the ES and EF times are calculated for all activities.
The project duration is set to equal the EF of the last activity (END)
and is equal to 20 days. For the backward pass calculations,
Eqs. (11)–(15) are used. Activity A, for example, has two succes-
sors (E and I) with FS relationships. Applying the precedence con-
straint for the FS relation based on Eq. (11)
LFi ≤ LSj − LT ij ði; jÞ ∀ jFSij ¼ 1
LFA ≤ LSE − LT AE and LFA ≤ LSI − LT AI
LFA ≤ 15 − 0 and LFA ≤ 17 − 0
Therefore, LFA ¼ 15.
The late start (LSA ) of activity A is then calculated using
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Eq. (15)
LSi ¼ LFi − xi
LSA ¼ 15 − 3 ¼ 12
The activity-duration constraints [Eqs. (2) and (3)] must also be
satisfied. These constraints are shown in the bottom right of Fig. 2.
Eq. (2) is used to set up the duration constraints for critical activ-
ities, whereas Eq. (3) is used to set up the duration constraints
for noncritical activities. The activities’ duration (xi ) are set to
be adjustable parameters and linked to the network. As the network
changes, activities’ duration changes and the calculations are done
accordingly through the model.
Fig. 3. Final solution after running the NLIP model
© ASCE 04015001-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.
The table on the bottom right of Fig. 2 shows the cost calcula-
tions. The normal duration and original total float, for all activities,
are kept constant throughout the calculations. The current float col-
umn will vary according to the model calculations at each crashing
scenario. The values in the current total float column have to be
linked to the total float of each activity in the network. As the
network changes, activities’ total float changes and the current float
values change accordingly. The values in the CUC column are cal-
culated using Eq. (19). The values in the float unit cost column are
calculated using Eq. (21). The values in the crashing cost and the
float cost columns are calculated using Eqs. (20) and (23), respec-
tively. The total float-loss cost should be constrained to be ≥ 0 for
each activity.
The objective function is then set in the summary table at the
bottom of Fig. 2. The direct cost is calculated using Eq. (18) as
the sum of all the direct (normal) cost of all activities. From Table 1,
the sum of all the normal costs is US$6,415. The overhead cost
(COH ) is assumed to be US$90=day for this example project.
The indirect cost is calculated using Eq. (17) and is equal to US
$1,800 (20 days × US$90=day). At the normal case, there are no
crashing costs nor float cost. Thus, the normal total cost is calcu-
lated to be US$8,215.
After developing the model and running it using What’sBest,
the optimum duration, without considering the total float-loss cost,
is found to be 12 days. The associated minimum total cost is
US$7,940. The results are consistent with those reported by
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Isidore and Back (2001). Considering the total float cost impact, the Table 2. Comparison of TF between the Traditional Method and the NLIP
optimum duration is 18 days with a total cost considering total Model
float-consumption impact equal to US$8,155. Fig. 3 presents the Total float Total float Total float
final solution using the proposed model. According to the model, Activity (normal case) (traditional method) (NLIP model)
the solution was reached after activity E was crashed by 2 days A 6 0 6
resulting in an extra direct crashing cost of US$70 and a total float B 0 0 0
loss in activity I by 2 days. The extra direct crashing cost for C 2 0 2
activity E is calculated using Eq. (20) D 0 0 0
E 0 0 0
X
n
F 6 0 6
ΔDC ¼ CUCi × ðxi max − xi Þ G 0 0 0
i¼1
H 2 0 2
ΔDCE ¼ US$35 × ð5 − 3Þ ¼ US$70 I 2 0 0
J 2 0 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Total float-loss cost for activity I was found to be US$50 and is

calculated using Eq. (23)
X
nn Table 3. Activities’ Critical Indices at 12- and 18-Day Duration
FLC ¼ FUCq × ðfaq − f bq Þ Traditional
q¼1 Activity method NLIP model
FLCI ¼ US$25 × ð2 − 0Þ ¼ US$50 A 1 0.05
B 1 0.69
The total cost of US$8,155 is calculated using Eq. (24) C 1 0.43
D 1 0.69
Total cost ¼ direct cost þ indirect cost þ total float loss E 1 0.84
F 1 0.05
þ crashing cost ¼ US$6,415 G 1 0.69
þ ðUS$90=day × 18 daysÞ þ US$50 þ US$70 H 1 0.43
I 1 0.82
¼ US$8,155 J 1 0.45

Fig. 4 illustrates the total cost curve in both cases, using the
traditional approach and the new NLIP model.
To highlight the importance of incorporating the total float-loss
cost into the optimization problem, a comparison is performed be-
tween the results of the traditional method and the NLIP framework
in terms of criticality ratio, schedule flexibility, and the probability
of finishing (POF) the project on time. In terms of criticality ratio,
the traditional method resulted in a project with all activities being
critical with a criticality ratio of 1, while the NLIP model resulted in
a criticality ratio of 0.5. In terms of schedule flexibility, the NLIP
model performed better than the traditional method. Table 2 illus-
trates a comparison of remaining total float between the traditional
method and the NLIP model solution. It is clear that using the tradi-
tional method, all the activities became critical. The proposed
model saves some of the total float available for noncritical activ-
ities, and thus, preserves some of the needed flexibility in the
project schedule. In addition, the activities’ criticality indices were
much lower using the proposed model. Table 3 shows the activities’
critical indices using the model.
Fig. 4. Total cost versus duration curves
The MCS was used to calculate the POF the project on time
using the following three scenarios: normal schedule, traditional
method, and the proposed method. Ten thousand iterations were
used to find the POF for each scenario. For the normal schedule,
duration of 20 days, the mean was calculated to be 21.16 days with
a standard deviation of 3.03 days. Therefore, the POF the project
within 20 days was calculated to be 0.35. Using the traditional
crashing method, project duration of 12 days, the mean was calcu-
lated to be 15.39 days with a standard deviation of 2.75 days.
Thus, the POF the project within 12 days was calculated to be
0.11. Using the proposed model, project duration of 18 days,
the mean was calculated to be 19.71 days with a standard deviation
of 2.92 days. Therefore, the POF the project on time, within
18 days, is calculated to be 0.28. This proves that the new proposed
model reduces the risk of project delays compared with the tradi-
tional method. To best check the applicability and validity of the
developed model, the NLIP model was tested over five examples
selected from literature. The probabilities of finishing the project on
time using the developed model in all five cases were better than
those using the classical deterministic optimization technique.
Table 4 summarizes the results and the resulting probabilities of
the five examples.
Taking project four (Elbeltagi 2002) as an example, the tradi-
tional crashing approach resulted in reducing the project duration
from 59 to 51 days with a minimum cost of US$43,545. However,
the probability of completing the project on time dropped from
0.393 to 0.226. Using the proposed model, the optimum duration
is calculated to be 53 days with a minimum cost of US$43,711.
Although there is a modest increase in the minimum cost, the prob-
ability of completing the project on time improved to 0.313. Saving
float and reducing project risk could be better for the project man-
ager than getting the absolute minimum cost.

© ASCE 04015001-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.

 Table 4. Summary of the Five Example Results
Normal case Traditional solution NLIP model solution
Project Total Project Total Project Total
duration project cost duration project cost duration project cost
Examples (days) (US$) POF (days) (US$) POF (days) (US$) POF
Example one (Hinze 2008) 27 12,860 0.375 23 12,490 0.237 24 12,659 0.281
Example two (Oxley and Poskitt 1996) 24 30,520 0.426 17 28,870 0.209 21 30,252 0.386
Example three (Zeinalzadeh 2011) 20 2,044,000 0.342 16 1,990,000 0.122 17 2,005,795 0.161
Example four (Elbeltagi 2002) 59 43,875 0.393 51 43,545 0.226 53 43,711 0.313
Example five (Gould 2005) 37 119,745 0.342 30 116,465 0.165 32 118,035 0.255

Summary and Conclusion J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The proposed time–cost optimization model introduces the concept
of total float-loss impact into the trade-off analysis. The total float-
loss impact is quantified using the commodity approach. The idea
is inspired by the fact that whenever the project schedule is crashed,
total float of activities is consumed, and the POF on time is
reduced. In light of the results, incorporating the total float-loss
impact into the trade-off process can produce a more realistic op-
timum duration that accounts for risks arising from future potential
delays. Over the last decades, the time–cost trade-off problem
has been approached in different ways for facilitating the process
of optimization and improving the reliability of the results. The new
model considers a new criterion, which is total float consumption,
that was not adequately considered before. Existing trade-off tech-
niques examine only the decrease in total project cost until a mini-
mum cost is reached and neglects the risk impacts associated with
the reduction in project duration. In other words, they ignore the
total float losses in noncritical activities. Because of such losses,
the total float can be consumed and the noncritical activities
may become critical. Taking total float consumption into consid-
eration, while crashing, will assist in providing a more realistic op-
timized schedule with the least cost. The results indicate that the
proposed model reduces the risks associated with total float loss
due to crashing.
Although the optimum duration and cost are higher than those
obtained from traditional methods, the schedule risk is lower. The
new proposed model provides decision makers with a better tool to
solve the time–cost trade-off problem with the least possible risks
associated with total float loss. The proposed model could be ben-
eficial, if implemented, as it can help management in providing an
efficient solution to the time–cost trade-off problem while main-
taining a flexible schedule that meets the project needs with less
inhabited risk.
References
Al-Gahtani, K. (2009). “Float allocation using the total risk approach.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:2(88),
88–95.
Al-Gahtani, K., and Mohan, S. (2005). “Total float management for delay
analysis.” Rep. No. CD161-169, AACE International, Morgantown,
WV.
Ammar, M. (2003). “Float analysis of non-serial repetitive activities.”
Constr. Manage. Econ., 21(5), 535–542.
Burns, S., Liu, L., and Feng, C. (1996). “The LP/IP hybrid method for con-
struction time-cost tradeoff analysis.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 14(3),
265-276.
Castro-Lacouture, D., Süer, G., Gonzalez-Joaqui, J., and Yates, J. (2009).
“Construction project scheduling with time, cost and material restric-
tions using fuzzy mathematical models and critical path method.”
10(1096), 1096–1104.
Charoenngam, C., and Popescu, C. (1995). Project planning, scheduling
and control in construction: An encyclopedia of terms and applications,
1st Ed., Wiley, New York.
Chassiakos, A., and Sakellaropoulos, S. (2005). “Time-cost optimization
of construction projects with generalized activity constraints.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:
10(1115), 1115–1124.
Cusack, M. (1985). “The use of integer linear programming for modelling
project control information.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 3(2), 91–104.
Deckro, R., Herbert, J., Verdini, W., Grimsrud, P., and Venkateshwar, S.
(1995). “Nonlinear time-cost tradeoff models in project management.”
Comput. Ind. Eng., 28(2), 219–229.
De La Garza, J., Prateapusanond, A., and Ambani, N. (2007). “Prealloca-
tion of total float in the application of a critical path method based
construction contract.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2007)133:11(836), 836–845.
De La Garza, J., Vorster, M., and Parvin, M. (1991). “Total float traded as
commodity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(1991)117:4(716), 716–727.
Elbeltagi, E. (2002). “Project time-cost tradeoff.” Constr. Manage.,
164–181.
Eshtehardian, E., Afshar, A., and Abbasnia, R. (2008). “Time-cost optimi-
zation: Using GA and fuzzy sets theory for uncertainties in cost.”
Constr. Manage. Econ., 26(7), 679–691.
Feng, C., Liu, L., and Burns, S. (2000). “Stochastic construction time-cost
tradeoff analysis.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801
(2000)14:2(117), 117–126.
Geem, Z. (2010). “Multiobjective optimization of time-cost trade-off using
harmony search.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000167, 711–716.
Gong, D., and Rowings, J. (1995). “Calculation of safe float use in risk-
analysis-oriented network scheduling.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 13(3),
187–194.
Gould, F. (2005). Managing the construction process: Estimating, sched-
uling and project control, 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Gray, C., and Larson, E. (2008). Project management: The managerial
process, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hazir, O., Erel, E., and Gnalay, Y. (2011). “Robust optimization models for
the discrete time/cost trade-off problem.” Int. J. Prod. Econ., 130(1),
87–95.
Hinze, J. (2008). Construction planning and scheduling, 3rd Ed., Pearson-
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Isidore, L., and Back, E. (2002). “Multiple simulation analysis for probabi-
listic cost and schedule integration.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 128(3),
211–219.
Isidore, L., and Back, W. (2001). “Probabilistic optimal-cost scheduling.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:6(431),
431–437.
Islam, M., Rana, M., Rafique, S., and Aziza, T. (2004). “Crashing project
time with least cost: A linear programming approach.” J. Bus. Res., 6,
13–28.

© ASCE 04015001-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.

 Kim, J., Kang, C., and Hwang, I. (2012). “A practical approach to project
scheduling: Considering the potential quality loss cost in the time-cost
tradeoff problem.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 30(2), 264–272.
Klansek, U., and Psunder, M. (2008). “Cost optimal project scheduling.”
J. Manage. Inf. Hum. Resour., 41(4), 153–158.
Klansek, U., and Psunder, M. (2012). “MINLP optimization model for
nonlinear discrete time-cost tradeoff problem.” J. Adv. Eng. Software,
48(1), 6–16.
Leu, S., and Yang, C. (1999). “GA-based multicriteria optimal model for
construction scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(1999)125:6(420), 420–427.
Li, H., and Love, P. (1997). “Using improved genetic algorithms to facili-
tate time-cost optimization.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(1997)123:3(233), 233–237.
Liu, J., and Rahbar, F. (2004). “Project time-cost tradeoff optimization by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
maximal flow theory.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2004)130:4(607), 607–609.
Liu, L., Burns, S., and Feng, C. (1995). “Construction time-cost tradeoff
analysis using LP/IP hybrid method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:4(446), 446–454.
Moselhi, O., and Lorterapong, P. (1993). “Near optimal solution for
resource-constrained scheduling problem.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
11(4), 293–303.
Moussourakis, J., and Haksever, C. (2007). “Models for accurate compu-
tation of earliest and latest start times and optimal compression in
project networks.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2007)133:8(600), 600–608.
Ng, S., and Zhang, Y. (2008). “Optimizing construction time and cost using
ant colony optimization approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:9(721), 721–728.
© ASCE 04015001-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2015.141.
Oxley, R., and Poskitt, J. (1996). Management techniques applied to the
construction industry, 5th Ed., Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
Perera, S. (1980). “Linear programming solution to network compression.”
J. Constr. Div., 106(3), 315–326.
Que, B. (2001). “Incorporating practicability into genetic algorithm-based
time-cost optimization.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2002)128:2(139), 139–143.
Sakka, Z., and El-Sayegh, S. (2007). “Float consumption impact on cost
and schedule in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:2(124), 124–130.
Sonmez, R., and Bettemir, O. (2012). “A hybrid genetic algorithm for the
discrete time-cost trade-off problem.” Expert Syst. Appl., 39(13),
11428–11434.
Sunde, L., and Lichtenberg, S. (1995). “Net-present-value cost/time trade-
off.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 13(1), 45–49.
What’sBest solver version 11.0 [Computer software]. Chicago, Lindo Sys-
tems Inc.
Yang, I.-T. (2005). “Chance-constrained time-cost trade-off analysis con-
sidering funding variability.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2005)131:9(1002), 1002–1012.
Yang, I.-T. (2007). “Using elitist particle swarm optimization to facilitate
bicriterion time-cost trade-off analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:7(498), 498–505.
Zeinalzadeh, A. (2011). “An application of mathematical model to time-
cost tradeoff problem (case study).” Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 5(7),
208–214.
Zhang, H., and Li, H. (2010). “Multi-objective particle swarm optimization
for construction time-cost tradeoff problem.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
28(1), 75–88.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.