Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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,