You are on page 1of 8

T ECHNICAL A RTICLE

ditions were abnormal for the period of

Analyzing Weather-Related time and could not have been reasonably


anticipated, and that weather conditions
had an adverse effect on the scheduled
Construction Claims construction.” In other words, such clauses
specifically stipulate that weather-related
claims should be supported by appropriate
documentation, substantiating that the
weather conditions during construction
Dr. Osama Moselhi, P.Eng. and Dr. Khaled El-Rayes were abnormal and unexpected and that
the encountered abnormal weather condi-
ABSTRACT: Adverse weather is considered one of the main factors causing delays and tions had an adverse effect on the construc-
cost overruns on construction projects. These adverse effects often prompt contractors tion schedule.
to submit claims for additional time and/or cost on the basis of unexpected weather The first type of documentation can
conditions. The analysis of such claims is a challenging task because of the difficulties readily be provided by comparing actual
associated with quantifying the extent of construction delays caused by adverse weath- weather conditions experienced on site to
er conditions. This article presents an effective procedure for quantifying the impact of normal weather conditions as per historical
weather conditions on construction productivity, project schedule, and associated weather data recorded at the closest weath-
delays. The procedure uses a decision support system, named WEATHER, designed er station to that site. The production of the
to facilitate the analysis of weather-related construction claims. The system has been second type of documentation, however, is
recently expanded and is currently capable of considering various weather-sensitive a more challenging task. It requires a satis-
construction tasks including: masonry construction, electrical work, outdoor manual factory answer to the quantitative question
and equipment tasks, earthmoving operations, construction of highway base courses of, “how many days did the abnormal
and drainage layers, paving operations and general construction. An application exam- weather conditions contribute to the expe-
ple is analyzed to illustrate the use of the WEATHER system and demonstrate its capa- rienced construction delays?” The objec-
bilities in providing an objective and impartial analysis of weather-related construction tive of this article is to present a quantita-
claims. tive and effective procedure that assists in
providing an answer to this essential ques-
KEY WORDS: Construction Claims, Claims Analysis, Construction Disputes, Weather tion. The proposed procedure uses an
Impact, Construction Productivity, Construction Planning and Scheduling, Highway expanded version of a recently developed
Construction. decision support system named WEATH-
ER [10]. Specifically, this article presents
onstruction operations are tasks, and accordingly is considered one of the following.

C often sensitive to weather con- the main factors causing delays and cost
ditions such as temperature, overruns on construction projects [6, 7, 8,
humidity, wind, rainfall and/or 9].
snow. The degree of sensitivity to these
parameters varies significantly from one When exceptional adverse weather
List of symbols used in this article

AD—as-possible activity duration in


construction operation to another because causes construction delays and/or cost over- days.
of the specific nature of these operations runs, contractors often submit claims, BD—as-built activity duration in days.
and the methods used in their execution. requesting extension to the project comple- ID—ideal activity duration in days.
In order to consider the unique sensitivity tion time and/or compensation for extra PD—as-planned activity duration in
of individual construction operations to cost, citing adverse weather as the basis for days.
various weather parameters, studies have their claims. In fact, many construction FP—planned productivity factor cal-
been conducted to estimate weather-relat- contracts include specific clauses that regu-
culated by WEATHER system
ed productivity losses in: masonry construc- late the basis and conditions for submitting
using the normal weather data
tion [4, 12], electrical work [11], outdoor weather-related claims such as the AIA doc-
recorded in previous years at the
manual and equipment tasks [14], and gen- ument A201 [1, 3]. This document out-
closest weather station to the con-
eral construction [5]. The findings of these lines the general conditions of the contract
struction site;
studies have been incorporated in a deci- and includes a specific clause (number
FA—as-possible productivity factor
sion support system for estimating the 4.3.8) that covers “claims for additional
calculated by WEATHER system
impact of weather on the productivity and time.” The second component of this
using the actual weather data
duration of construction activities [10]. clause (4.3.8.2) states, “If adverse weather
encountered during construc-
The above studies have indicated that conditions are the basis for a claim for addi-
tion, also obtained from the same
adverse weather has a significant impact on tional time, such claim shall be document-
weather station.
the productivity of many construction ed by data substantiating that weather con-
12 Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002
• a quantitative procedure for analyzing
Start weather-related construction claims
that uses an expanded version of
WEATHER system;
• validation of the developed procedure;
Retrieve the as-planned schedule
and
• an application example to illustrate the
Step 1: Generate the ideal schedule using: use of the procedure and demonstrate
a) weather data from previous years; and its capabilities.
b) WEATHER system to calculate productivity factor Fp, and
apply Eq. [3]
Analysis of Weather-Related
Construction Claims
Step 2: Generate the as-possible schedule using: An objective analysis of weather-relat-
a) weather data recorded during the construction period; and ed construction claims requires the quan-
b) WEATHER system to calculate productivity factor FA, and tification of the impact of weather condi-
apply Eq. [4] tions on the construction schedule and
consequent delays. This impact can be
identified by analyzing the “as-planned,”
Calculate weather-related delays by comparing “as-built,” “ideal,” and “as-possible” sched-
the as-possible schedule to the as-planned schedule ules (see Figure 1). In this article, the term
“as-planned schedule” is used to refer to
the schedule prepared and submitted by
Calculate non-weather-related delays by comparing the contractor as part of the contract docu-
the as-possible schedule to the as-built schedule ments, accounting for the prevailing nor-
mal weather conditions expected on the
job site. The term “as-built schedule” is
End used to describe the actual schedule of
activities as constructed on site. Also, the
term “ideal schedule” is used to describe a
Figure 1—Analysis of Weather-Related Claims schedule that does not consider any delays

Figure 2—As-Possible vs. As-Planned Schedule


Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002 13
due to weather, and the term “as-possible [2] BD = actual duration experienced on The factors FP and FA are calculated
schedule” is used to describe the schedule site. using a decision support system named
that would have been possible given the WEATHER. The system runs on Microsoft
actual weather conditions experienced on [3] ID = PD x FP Windows NT and 2000 and provides user-
site. It should be noted that the “ideal friendly interface to facilitate its use.
schedule” has no practical value and is [4] AD = ID WEATHER [10] was developed to estimate
used in this article as a reference base in FA the impact of weather conditions on con-
performing intermediate calculations lead- Where, struction productivity and schedule, using
ing to the development of the “as-possible functions, tables and/or rules of thumb.
schedule” (see Figure 1). Accordingly, the FP planned productivity factor calculated The application of WEATHER was limited
duration of a construction activity in an as- by WEATHER system using the nor- to the construction tasks of masonry con-
planned schedule (PD), as-built schedule mal weather data recorded in previous struction, electrical work, outdoor manual
(BD), ideal schedule (ID), and as-possible years at the closest weather station to and equipment tasks and general construc-
schedule (AD) can be estimated as follows: the construction site; tion. In order to provide a wider range of
FA as-possible productivity factor calculat- potential applications, WEATHER has
ed by WEATHER system using the recently been expanded to consider com-
[1] PD = as - planned duration accounting actual weather data encountered dur- mon highway construction activities.
for expected normal weather condi- ing construction, also obtained from A set of if-then type rules has been
tions. the same weather station. developed and incorporated in the expand-
ed version of WEATHER to quantify the
impact of weather on the productivity and
Table 1—Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Contract Working Days
duration of highway construction opera-
Construction Month tions. The rule set covers four main activi-
District May June July August September October November ties: earthmoving; construction of base
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) courses; construction of drainage layers;
1 15 20 20 20 18 15 14 and paving operations. The rules were
acquired from experts in highway construc-
2 15 20 20 20 18 14 12
tion, who indicated that weather-related
3 15 19 20 20 18 14 12 productivity losses for these tasks depend
4 17 19 20 20 17 16 13 mainly on: the type of activity; intensity of
5 15 19 20 20 18 13 11 rainfall; period of rainfall; and drying con-
6 17 18 20 20 18 15 13 ditions on site.

Figure 3—As-Possible vs. As-Built Schedule


14 Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002
Accordingly, a set of approximately on site have been grouped into three main moving activity that was scheduled to have
200 rules of thumb has been developed categories (i.e. good, average, and poor) an as-planned duration of 36 days (PD =
and incorporated in the system to estimate depending on the soil conditions, availabil- 36) which accounts for the prevailing nor-
the impact of these factors on the produc- ity of drainage system, and prevailing mal weather conditions expected on the
tivity of highway construction operations. A weather conditions after rainfall that affect job site. During construction operations,
sample rule is shown below and others are the evaporation of the accumulated rain however, assume that the activity was con-
included in Appendix I. such as sunshine hours and wind. structed in an as-built duration of 50 days
The application of the incorporated (BD = 50) because of the impact of adverse
“If the construction task is earthmov- rules of thumb, tables and functions weather conditions among other factors. In
ing, and the amount of accumulated rain- requires the utilization of a weather data- order to consider only the impact of the
fall exceeds 13 mm and is less than 25 mm, base that contains hourly records of rain, encountered adverse weather conditions,
and the rain occurs in the morning working snow, temperature, wind and humidity. an as-possible duration needs to be estimat-
hours from 8 a.m. to noon, and the drying The database represents historical and ed. Using the developed set of rules of
conditions on site after rain is average, then actual weather conditions experienced on thumb, WEATHER is first used to calcu-
the earthmoving operations will be sus- site and therefore should be obtained from late the two productivity factors FP and FA
pended during the rainy day and the fol- the closest weather station to the site. described earlier. These factors are then
lowing day.” WEATHER currently incorporates histori- used to calculate the as possible duration of
cal weather database for a period of over 30 the activity being considered. In this case
In the developed rules, the intensity of years obtained from five weather stations in the planned productivity factor (FP) and
rainfall is expressed by the total amount of two major Canadian cities (Montreal and the as-possible productivity factor (FP)
rain accumulated during a given period of Toronto). The system, however, is also were calculated to be 0.83 and 0.67,
the day. The intensity of rainfall has been designed as a portable system that can respectively. Using equations [3] and [4],
grouped into four main classes bounded by interface with weather databases for other the two factors were then used to calculate
threshold values of 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 and 1-inch cities, where data is available. the ideal and as-possible durations for the
of rain (i.e. 3, 6, 13 and 25 mm). The peri- The application of WEATHER system activity being considered to be 30 and 45
od of rainfall has been classified into four facilitates the analysis of weather-related working days, respectively. Analyzing and
main periods (i.e., overnight, morning, claims and enables the quantification of comparing the as-planned, as-built, and as-
afternoon, and combined morning and the impact of weather conditions on the possible durations reveal vital and quantita-
afternoon) based on the construction peri- productivity and duration of construction tive information about the impact of the
od of a working day. The drying conditions activities. For example, consider an earth- encountered abnormal weather and
demonstrate to what extent it contributed
Table 2—Validation Analysis for Earthmoving Operations to the delay of the activity. In this simplified
Ideal Finish Date Difference example, it can be shown that the contrac-
Weather Start Working Calendar % of calendar days tor has suffered an excusable delay of only
Station Date Days MTO WEATHER Days in construction period nine days (i.e., AD - PD = 45 - 36 = 9)
because of weather related factors, and a
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
non-excusable delay of five days (i.e., BD -
1 1-May 108 31-Oct 4-Nov -4 -2.2% PD = 50 - 45 = 5) because of other non-
2 1-May 108 31-Oct 2-Nov -2 -1.1% weather related factors.
3 1-May 108 31-Oct 2-Nov -2 -1.1% This method of analysis can be applied
Average = -1.4% to a single activity, a group of activities, or

Figure 4—Validation Analysis for Earthmoving Operations


Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002 15
an entire project depending on the type during construction and comparing it to tive “as-possible” schedule can be more
and size of the claim being considered. In the as-planned and as-built schedules. The challenging. The “as-possible” schedule
most weather-related claims, the as- comparison between the as-possible and as- should isolate the effects of actual weather
planned and as-built schedules are readily planned schedules substantiates the effects conditions experienced on site and quanti-
available and can easily be analyzed. A of adverse weather conditions on the con- fy their impact on construction productivi-
comparison of these two schedules reveals struction schedule and quantifies the ty and project schedule. In this article, the
the total delay experienced, if any. This extent of weather-related delays (see Figure “as-possible” schedule is generated using
total delay, however, is often caused by a 2). The comparison between the as-possi- WEATHER, based on the readily available
combination of weather and non-weather ble and as-built schedules reveals vital as-planned schedule, in two main steps as
related factors. An objective analysis of information on the extent of delay, if any, shown in Figure 1. In the first step, the
weather-related construction claims caused by non-weather related factors (see ideal schedule is generated using WEATH-
requires the isolation and quantification of Figure 3). ER system using the following.
delays attributed only to weather. This can Unlike the as-planned and as-built
be achieved by developing an “as-possible” schedules which are either readily available • the as-planned schedule;
schedule that considers the impact of only or can directly be generated from the proj- • historical weather data obtained from
abnormal weather conditions encountered ect records, the development of an objec- the closest weather station to the site;
and
Table 3—Validation of WEATHER System • equation [3].
Average Difference Between In the second step, the as-possible
Activity MTO & WEATHER Software schedule is developed using the ideal
(1) (2) schedule generated in the first step; the
Earthmoving Operations -1.4% actual weather conditions experienced dur-
Base Construction 6.7% ing construction, also obtained from the
closest weather station to the site; and the
Drainage Layer Construction 8.3%
equation [4].
Paving 3.1% The as-planned and as-possible sched-
Average = 4.9% ules, in this analysis, are developed using
the same ideal schedule and WEATHER
system that uses the same criteria to quanti-
fy the impact of weather conditions on con-
struction schedule. As such, any difference
between the as-planned and as-possible
schedules can only be attributed to the dif-
ference between the normal and abnormal
weather conditions. Contrasting the as-
planned, as-built and the developed as-pos-
sible schedules reveals vital information
that facilitates the analysis and resolution of
weather related construction claims (see
Figures 2 and 3). This procedure has been
successfully applied in the analysis of a
recent multimillion-dollar weather related
claim. In this claim, adverse and abnormal
weather conditions were encountered dur-
ing construction, leading to significant
delays. In order to compensate for these
delays and meet the specified project dead-
line, the contractor had to speed up con-
struction operations, and as a result has
experienced significant productivity losses
and additional costs. The above procedure
has been applied to substantiate and quan-
tify the extent of delays attributed to adverse
weather conditions, and ultimately led to
successful negotiations and settlement of
this claim.

Figure 5—As-Planned Schedule for Paving Activity


16 Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002
Table 4—Analysis of Application Example
Pre-Analysis Data Post-Analysis Data
Activity As-Planned Schedule (1996) As-Built Schedule (1996) Ideal Schedule As-Possible Schedule (1996)
Start Duration Finish Start Duration Finish Duration Start Duration Finish
First Segment of Project
Earthmoving May 01 64 July 29 May 01 79 Aug. 19 52 May 01 77 Aug. 15
Base Courses May 08 61 July 31 May 08 76 Aug. 21 54 May 08 74 Aug. 19
Drainage Layer May 15 62 Aug. 08 May 15 73 Aug. 23 55 May 15 70 Aug. 20
Paving May 22 65 Aug. 20 May 22 71 Aug. 28 57 May 22 69 Aug. 26
Second Segment of Project
Earthmoving July 30 32 Sep. 11 Aug. 20 37 Oct. 09 25 Aug. 16 34 Oct. 02
Base Courses Aug. 06 35 Sep. 23 Aug. 27 42 Oct. 23 31 Aug. 23 38 Oct. 15
Drainage Layer Aug. 13 37 Oct. 02 Sep. 03 41 Oct. 29 32 Aug. 30 38 Oct. 22
Paving Aug. 21 33 Oct. 04 Sep. 10 40 Nov. 04 28 Sep. 06 40 Oct. 31

VALIDATION ANALYSIS layer construction; and paving. The first APPLICATION EXAMPLE
validation analysis is performed for earth-
Productivity and duration estimates moving operations by comparing the dura- An application example of a section of
produced by WEATHER system using the tion estimates produced by WEATHER to a highway construction project is analyzed
developed procedure for highway construc- those produced based on MTO productive to illustrate the use of WEATHER and
tion operations are validated by comparing days during the 6-months construction sea- demonstrate its capabilities in analyzing
them to those used by the Ministry of son. For this type of construction, MTO weather-related construction claims. The
Transportation of Ontario in Canada. For estimates that the total productive working section considered includes four construc-
other provinces and states in North days within the construction period, May 1 tion activities, performed in two segments
America, a similar validation analysis can through October 31, to be 108 days for the as shown in Figure 2 and Table 4. Each of
be performed. The Ministry of city of Toronto (see district 6 in Table 1). these activities is constructed using a single
Transportation of Ontario (MTO) identi- Accordingly, a hypothetical earthmoving crew that moves from the first to the second
fies the contract working days (i.e., total activity that starts on May 1 and requires segment, sequentially. The precedence
productive working days) for the 6-months 108 productive working days (i.e., ideal relationships in this example satisfy job
construction period (i.e., May to duration = 108) should finish on October logic and crew availability constraints. The
November) for different districts in 31. This MTO-estimated finish date is job logic constraint requires, within each
Ontario. These working days are estimated compared to that obtained using WEATH- segment, precedence relationships of start
based on productivity losses caused by rain- ER system for the same activity, under nor- to start with a lag of one calendar week
fall patterns experienced in different geo- mal weather conditions. Normal weather among the four activities. This constraint is
graphical districts within the province. conditions here are represented by the aver- specified to avoid space congestion and
Table 1 shows the contract working days for age of available hourly weather records work interference among succeeding con-
a sample of 6 of the 20 districts in Ontario. from 1965 to 1994 in three weather stations struction crews within each segment of the
It should be noted that the working days in the Toronto area. The results of the project. For example, the construction
shown in Table 1 are applied equally to the analysis indicate that the finish date crew for the base courses activity can start
highway construction operations of earth- obtained using WEATHER system is in the first segment after at least one week
moving, base courses, drainage layer, and almost identical to that established based from the start of the earthmoving crew to
paving. This assumes that the productivity on MTO contract working days, where the avoid space congestion. The crew availabil-
of these different operations is affected average difference between the two is 1.4 ity constraint, on the other hand, requires a
equally by the same weather conditions. In percent (see Table 2 and Figure 4). A simi- precedence relationship of finish to start
reality, however, each construction opera- lar validation analysis was conducted for with no lag between the same activity in
tion is affected differently. WEATHER sys- the remaining three activities. As expected, two succeeding segments. For example the
tem is designed to account for this reality in the difference between WEATHER system earthmoving crew can start in the second
its incorporated set of rules which consider and MTO estimates varies from one con- segment only after finishing the same activ-
the unique sensitivity of each construction struction operation to another as shown in ity in the first segment.
task to rainfall as described earlier. As such, Table 3. The results indicate that the finish In this example, the contract specifies
it is expected that the difference between date obtained using WEATHER system for a start date of May 1, 1996, and a comple-
the estimates of WEATHER and those of each of the four activities is close to that tion date of October 4, 1996. It further stip-
MTO will vary from one construction obtained based on the MTO contract work- ulates that the owner is entitled to withhold
operation to another. ing days. The overall average difference is from the contractor, as liquidated damages,
A separate validation analysis is per- less than 5 percent (see Table 3). the sum of $5,000 per day for each calen-
formed for the construction activities of: dar day beyond the specified completion
earthmoving; base construction; drainage date. The as-planned schedule submitted
Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002 17
by the contractor as part of the contract 1994. It should be noted that this period of schedule estimated for the paving activity.
documents is shown in Figure 2 and Table weather data would have been available to It estimates that the as-possible activity
4. It is assumed that this schedule was pre- the contractor prior to construction in duration and its finish date based on 1996
pared by the contractor prior to construc- order to prepare the as-planned schedule. rain data to be 40 days and October 31,
tion, considering the impact of normal The ideal durations estimated using 1996, respectively. The as-possible sched-
weather conditions on construction pro- WEATHER system for the project activi- ule at both the activity and project levels is
ductivity and schedule. During construc- ties are summarized in Table 4. For exam- generated in compliance with the job logic
tion in 1996, abnormal weather conditions ple, Figure 5 shows the output of WEATH- and crew availability constraints consid-
were encountered in the form of heavy ER system for the paving activity in the sec- ered in the original as-planned schedule
rainfall and cloudy conditions. This led to ond segment. The system, in this case, esti- (see Figure 2). This is achieved by using
significant losses in construction productiv- mates an ideal duration of 28 working days, the WEATHER system in combination
ity and frequent suspensions of construc- given a) the activity's as-planned duration is with any commercially available software
tion operations. Accordingly, the actual as- 33 working days and its finish date is for planning and scheduling. The planning
built finish date was delayed by a total of 31 October 4,1996, and b) rainfall historical and scheduling software is used to develop
calendar days beyond the specified as- data from 1965 to 1994. This is identical to an as-possible schedule based on: 1) the as-
planned completion date (see Table 4), the original as-planned schedule for this possible activity durations generated by
holding the contractor liable to pay a total activity shown in Figure 2. The ideal dura- WEATHER; and 2) the original job logic
sum of $155,000 in liquidated damages. tion for each of the four activities in this and crew availability constraints of the as-
This prompted the contractor to submit a example was estimated in a similar manner planned schedule.
claim requesting time extension on the so as to reproduce an as-planned schedule In order to analyze and quantify the
basis of abnormal weather conditions. In that is identical to that submitted by the impact of abnormal weather conditions on
order to analyze this claim and facilitate its contractor prior to construction (see Figure the project completion date, the generated
resolution, the procedure described earlier 2). as-possible schedule is compared to the as-
is applied in two steps (see Figure 1). The In the second step, the as-possible planned schedule (see Figure 2) and to the
ideal schedule is generated in the first step, schedule is estimated for each activity as-built schedule (see Figure 3). The first
and the as-possible schedule in the second. based on: 1) the ideal duration calculated comparison indicates that the contractor
In the first step, the ideal duration or in the previous step; and 2) the actual has suffered an excusable delay of 27 cal-
the number of working days that can be hourly rain data recorded at the same endar days (see Figure 2), all attributed to
productive during the as-planned construc- weather station, but only for the calendar weather related factors. The second com-
tion period is calculated for each activity, year 1996. The as-possible schedule esti- parison shows that a non-excusable delay of
using: 1) WEATHER system; and 2) hourly mated by WEATHER system for each of 4 days (see Figure 3) occurred because of
rain data recorded in the closest weather the four activities is shown in Table 4. For other, non-weather related, factors.
station to the construction site from 1965 to example, Figure 6 illustrates the as-possible Accordingly, the liquidated damages that
the contractor could be liable for, in this
case, should be revised from $155,000 (i.e.,
$5,000 x 31 days) to $20,000 (i.e., $5,000 x
4 days). The application of WEATHER in
the analysis of this example provides an
objective and unbiased estimate of the
adverse effects of abnormal weather condi-
tions on the schedule as it uses the same
criteria to quantify the impact of normal
and abnormal weather conditions. This,
accordingly, provides a realistic estimate of
liquidated damages resulting from adverse
weather conditions.

A
quantitative procedure for the
analysis of weather-related con-
struction claims has been pre-
sented. The procedure uses a
decision support system named WEATH-
ER in order to substantiate and quantify
the impact of abnormal weather conditions
on the project schedule. WEATHER has
recently been expanded to consider com-
mon highway construction activities
Figure 6—As-Possible Schedule for Paving Activity including: earthmoving, base construction,

18 Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002


drainage layers, and paving. A set of if-then p.m., and the drying conditions on site after Productivity. ASCE Journal of
type rules has been acquired from experts rain is average, then earthmoving opera- Construction Engineering and
in this construction domain for estimating tions will be suspended during the after- Management, 117(4): 626-644.
the impact of weather conditions on con- noon of the rainy day."
13. Smith, G. R., and D.E. Hancher. 1989.
struction productivity and project sched- Rule 4—"If the construction task is
Estimating Precipitation Impacts for
ule. A total of approximately 200 rules has earthmoving, and the amount of accumu- Scheduling. ASCE Journal of
been developed and coded in the system. lated rainfall exceeds 6 mm and is less than Construction Engineering and
The results obtained from WEATHER 13 mm, and the rain occurs in the morning Management, 115(4): 552-566.
using these rules were validated by com- working hours from 8 a.m. to noon, and the 14. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
paring them to those produced based on drying conditions on site after rain is poor, Engineering Laboratory, 1986. Firms Face
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario then the earthmoving operations will be Frigid Facts. Engineering News Record,
data on productive days. The validation suspended during the morning and after- March 20: 168 pp.
analysis indicates close agreement between noon of the rainy day and a following day."
the results obtained using the two methods,
with an average difference of less than five REFERENCES About the Authors:
percent. WEATHER can be used to gener-
ate an objective and impartial as-possible 1.
American Institute of Architects AIA 1987.
schedule that considers the impact of General Conditions of the Contract for
Construction. AIA Document A201,
encountered adverse weather conditions
Washington D.C.
on construction productivity. Comparing 2. Baldwin, J.R., J.M. Manthei, H. Rothbart, Dr. Osama Moselhi,
the generated as-possible schedule to the and R.B. Harris. 1971. Causes of Delay in P.Eng., is professor and
readily available as-planned and as-built the Construction Industry. ASCE Journal chair of the Department
schedules reveals vital quantitative infor- of the Construction Division, 97(CO2): of Building, Civil and
mation on the extent of construction delays 177-187. Environment al
3. Clough, R.H., and G.A. Sears. 1994. Engineering at Concordia
caused by weather and by non-weather
Construction Contracting. Sixth edition, University. He held several industrial and aca-
related factors. This facilitates the quantifi- demic posts in Canada and internationally, in a
cation of damages arising from adverse John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
4. Grimm, C.T., and N.K. Wagner. 1974. wide spectrum of the engineering profession,
weather conditions and assists in negotiat- ranging from structural analysis and design to
Weather Effects on Mason Productivity.
ing equitable and speedy resolution of ASCE Journal of the Construction construction engineering and management, on
weather-related construction claims. ◆ Division, 100(CO3): 319-335. building projects, and heavy civil engineering
5. Koehn, E., and G. Brown. 1985. Climatic including bridges, offshore and harbor facilities,
Effects on Construction. ASCE Journal of and nuclear power plants. Dr. Moselhi is a pro-
APPENDIX I Construction Engineering and fessional engineer and a member and director of
Management, 111(2): 129-137. a number of professional associations. He is a
6. Isom, S. 1985. Weather Delay Time Fellow of ASCE and CSCE. He authored and
Sample If-Then Rules co-authored over 150 scientific publications.
Extensions. Highway & Heavy
Construction, July 1985: 41.
Rule 1—"If the construction task is
7. Koehn, E., and D. Meilhede. 1981. Cold
earthmoving, and the amount of accumu- Weather Construction Costs and Accidents.
lated rainfall exceeds 6 mm and is less than ASCE Journal of the Construction
13 mm, and the rain occurs in the morning Division, 107(CO4): 585-595.
working hours from 8 a.m. to noon, and the 8. Korman, R., S.W. Setzer, and M.B. Dr. Khaled El-Rayes is
drying conditions on site after rain is aver- Powers, 1992. Rains Wreck Summer an assistant professor in
Schedules. Engineering News Record, the Department of Civil
age, then the earthmoving operations will
McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly, and Environmental
be suspended during the morning and Engineering at the
afternoon of the rainy day." August 31: 6-7.
9. Laufer, A., and D. Cohenca, 1990. Factors University of Illinois at
Rule 2—"If the construction task is Urbana-Champaign, specializing in the devel-
Affecting Construction Planning Outcomes.
construction of highway base courses, and ASCE Journal of Construction opment of information technology and decision
the amount of accumulated rainfall Engineering and Management, 116(1): support systems for construction engineering
exceeds 6 mm and is less than 13 mm, and 135-156. and management applications. He has over 15
the rain occurs in the morning working 10. Moselhi, O., Gong, D., and El-Rayes, K. years of professional experience in both acade-
hours from 8 a.m. to noon, and the drying 1997. Estimating Weather Impact on mia and the construction industry. Prior to join-
Duration of Construction Activities. ing the University of Illinois at Urbana-
conditions on site after rain is average, then
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Champaign in 2000, he was an assistant profes-
the activity will be suspended during the sor of civil engineering at Concordia University
morning of the rainy day." 24(3): 359-366.
11. National Electrical Contractors and the University of Newfoundland in Canada.
Rule 3—"IF the construction task is He has also industrial and consulting experi-
Association, 1974. The Effect of
earthmoving, and the amount of accumu- Temperature on Productivity. Washington, ence in planning and scheduling, construction
lated rainfall exceeds 6 mm and is less than D.C. productivity, highway construction, and infor-
13 mm, and the rain occurs in the after- 12. Sanders, S. R., and H.R. Thomas, 1991. mation technology applications in construction.
noon working hours from 13:00 to 18:00 Factors Affecting Masonry-Labor

Cost Engineering Vol. 44/No. 8 AUGUST 2002 19

You might also like