Comparative Study of Prospective Delay Analysis Techniques (DATs)

S. Ghimire, A. Mishra
{"title":"Comparative Study of Prospective Delay Analysis Techniques (DATs)","authors":"S. Ghimire, A. Mishra","doi":"10.36348/sjce.2019.v03i05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Delays are the major sources of disputes and adverse relationships between the stakeholders in construction industry. The existing delay analysis techniques (DATs), though helpful for decision-making, have not succeeded in properly addressing the high incidence of disputes associated with delay claims resolutions. This research has made a comparative study of limitation and capabilities of different ̳Prospective‘ DATs i.e., Impacted as Planned method and Time Impact Analysis Method under the same baseline program and under similar circumstances of delay occurrence through the case study of under-Construction Hydroelectric Project and review of the relevant issues not addressed by the techniques. Oracle‘s Primavera (P6) software has been used for delay analysis. The Contractor has not followed any of the DATs to raise the claim for extension of time. Though the contractor has submitted its revised construction schedule as per the FIDIC conditions of contract and ask for time extension of 721 days, the revised construction schedule has no any linkage with the original approved baseline Schedule. The Impacted as planned technique confined the delay to 621 days. The actual site condition and the progress were not considered in this method. The concurrent delays and pacing delays were also not addressed. According to the Time Impact analysis technique, the contractor‘s caused delay was 101 days and the delay from Employer‘s side was 529 days. The actual site condition and the progress were considered in this method. However, none of the Delay analysis techniques is found to address all the delay occurring events. The concurrent delays and pacing delayswere also not addressed. Time impact analysis technique is more accurate method as the site progress is incorporated in this method and is recommended to be followed.","PeriodicalId":437137,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Journal of Civil Engineering","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Journal of Civil Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36348/sjce.2019.v03i05.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Delays are the major sources of disputes and adverse relationships between the stakeholders in construction industry. The existing delay analysis techniques (DATs), though helpful for decision-making, have not succeeded in properly addressing the high incidence of disputes associated with delay claims resolutions. This research has made a comparative study of limitation and capabilities of different ̳Prospective‘ DATs i.e., Impacted as Planned method and Time Impact Analysis Method under the same baseline program and under similar circumstances of delay occurrence through the case study of under-Construction Hydroelectric Project and review of the relevant issues not addressed by the techniques. Oracle‘s Primavera (P6) software has been used for delay analysis. The Contractor has not followed any of the DATs to raise the claim for extension of time. Though the contractor has submitted its revised construction schedule as per the FIDIC conditions of contract and ask for time extension of 721 days, the revised construction schedule has no any linkage with the original approved baseline Schedule. The Impacted as planned technique confined the delay to 621 days. The actual site condition and the progress were not considered in this method. The concurrent delays and pacing delays were also not addressed. According to the Time Impact analysis technique, the contractor‘s caused delay was 101 days and the delay from Employer‘s side was 529 days. The actual site condition and the progress were considered in this method. However, none of the Delay analysis techniques is found to address all the delay occurring events. The concurrent delays and pacing delayswere also not addressed. Time impact analysis technique is more accurate method as the site progress is incorporated in this method and is recommended to be followed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前瞻性延迟分析技术(dat)的比较研究
延误是建筑行业利益相关者之间纠纷和不利关系的主要来源。现有的延迟分析技术(dat)虽然有助于决策,但未能成功地妥善解决与延迟索赔解决相关的高发生率纠纷。本研究通过对在建水电项目的案例分析,对相同基线方案和类似延迟发生情况下不同的“预期影响分析法”即“计划影响分析法”和“时间影响分析法”的局限性和能力进行了比较研究,并对技术未解决的相关问题进行了评述。Oracle的Primavera (P6)软件被用于延迟分析。承包商没有按照任何日期提出延期索赔。尽管承包商已按照FIDIC合同条件提交了修改后的施工进度计划,并要求延长721天的工期,但修改后的施工进度计划与原批准的基线进度计划没有任何联系。impact as planned技术将延迟时间限制在621天。该方法未考虑现场实际情况和施工进度。同时出现的延迟和节奏延迟也没有得到解决。根据时间影响分析技术,承包商造成的延误为101天,雇主方面的延误为529天。该方法考虑了现场的实际情况和施工进度。然而,没有发现任何延迟分析技术可以解决所有延迟发生的事件。同时出现的延迟和速度延迟也没有得到解决。时间影响分析技术由于纳入了现场进度,是一种较为准确的方法,建议采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Laboratory Evaluation of the Hydraulic Conductivity as a Function of Changes in the Particle Size of a Cubitermes Sp Termite Mound Soil Treated with Lime Laboratory Evaluation of the Hydraulic Conductivity as a Function of Changes in the Particle Size of a Cubitermes Sp Termite Mound Soil Treated with Lime On-Grid Solar Traction System Experimental and Theoretical Shear Strength of Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beam Relationship between the Intrinsic Properties of Sands and the Parameters of Mathematical Particle Size Distribution Models for Predicting Geotechnical Quantities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1