Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 8 results ...

Ho, P H K (2010) Forecasting Construction Manpower Demand by Gray Model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1299–305.

Jarkas, A M (2010) Critical Investigation into the Applicability of the Learning Curve Theory to Rebar Fixing Labor Productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1279–88.

Jung, W, Han, S H, Park, H and Kim, D Y (2010) Empirical Assessment of Internationalization Strategies for Small and Medium Construction Companies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1306–16.

Kassab, M, Hegazy, T and Hipel, K (2010) Computerized DSS for Construction Conflict Resolution under Uncertainty. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1249–57.

Leung, M, Chan, Y and Chong, A M L (2010) Chinese Values and Stressors of Construction Professionals in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1289–98.

Liu, S and Wang, C (2010) Profit Optimization for Multiproject Scheduling Problems Considering Cash Flow. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1268–78.

Lu, W (2010) Improved SWOT Approach for Conducting Strategic Planning in the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1317–28.

Nguyen, L D, Kneppers, J, García de Soto, B and Ibbs, W (2010) Analysis of Adverse Weather for Excusable Delays. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1258–67.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Claims; Weather; Delay time; Contracts; Construction management; Claims; Weather; Delay time; Contracts; Construction management;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0733-9364
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000242
  • Abstract:
    Severe weather conditions can be disruptive to construction. Contractors typically obtain time extensions for weather days beyond normal conditions. However, contracting parties often dispute the extent of weather-related time extensions. Typical industry contracts may overlook many important points that can provide an acceptable resolution. This paper classifies seven factors causing discrepancies in analysis of adverse weather for time extensions; namely, the definition of normal weather, weather thresholds, type of work, lingering days, criteria for lost days, lost days equivalent due to lost productivity, and work days lost versus calendar days lost. An analysis of an actual weather-caused delay claim illustrates the impacts of those factors on the outcomes of the analysis. A contract should define anticipated weather delay days and their lingering days and provide threshold values for weather parameters to differentiate between predictable and unpredictable severe weather. The contract should clearly define how a time extension is granted in calendar days as a result of work days lost, and also address how a time extension is granted due to inefficiency caused by unusually severe weather. Future research may provide an appropriate mechanism for analyzing equivalent lost days to account for lost productivity.