Show simple item record

contributor authorAbdulaziz A. Bubshait
contributor authorMichael J. Cunningham
date accessioned2017-05-08T22:39:10Z
date available2017-05-08T22:39:10Z
date copyrightJuly 1998
date issued1998
identifier other%28asce%290733-9364%281998%29124%3A4%28315%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/85168
description abstractDuring a construction project, delays may result from many circumstances. Delays may be caused by the owner, the contractor, by acts of God, or a third party. They may occur early or late in the job, alone or with other delays. Negotiating a fair and timely damage settlement is beneficial to all parties. Network-based scheduling is an excellent vehicle for negotiating settlement of changes, disputes, and delays throughout the project. In the construction industry, however, there is no single, standard, and “accepted” procedure to determine the impact of schedule delays due to change orders or other unplanned developments. In this paper three delay measurement processes were studied. These procedures were employed to measure delay impact, utilizing computerized critical path method (CPM) analyses, performed on genuine construction schedules. Results indicate that outcomes of delay analyses are not predictable, nor can one method be used universally. However, in given circumstances, one procedure can be more beneficial than another. Guidelines for the utilization of each method have been presented.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleComparison of Delay Analysis Methodologies
typeJournal Paper
journal volume124
journal issue4
journal titleJournal of Construction Engineering and Management
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:4(315)
treeJournal of Construction Engineering and Management:;1998:;Volume ( 124 ):;issue: 004
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record