Issuu

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ACTUAL AND CRASHED SCHEDULE OF BUILDING USING MSP

Sanjay Jagadeshwara E1, Dr. Nagaraj P S2

1Mtech Student (Construction Technology), University Visvesvaraya College of Engineering, Bangalore University, Bengaluru

2Professor, Civil Engineering Dept. University Visvesvaraya College of Engineering, Bangalore University, Bengaluru ***

Abstract - Project management is main stream which overall makes a civil industry worth into existence in accordance with the control on constraints such as time and cost. This paper will mainly help out to differentiate actual and crashed schedule and their behavioral improvements in time according to the relative cost. Microsoft project software is used to enhance the scheduling adding Crashing, Slack time and alternative building material to the work planning activity. Crashing makes a proper inventory behavioral time benefits from the overtime of huge workforce and improvement in the duration of an activity using slack time in software. An alteration with the cost is maintained which helpful in retrogression of overall costs of the project.

The main aim is to reduce the improved development period from new time and to meet a specific deadline. The main motivation behind this project is to reduce time using crashing and slack (Time Optimization).For cost optimization alternative building material is used to reduce the cost and making project more well-organized and inexpensive.

Key Words: scheduling and crashing, crashing trials, alternative material and techniques, crash ability, cost slope.

1. INTRODUCTION

• Everyonewantstobemoreconservativewhenitcomesintotimeconstraint.

• Shorterdurationworkshouldbedonegivingmoreprofitableresults.

• Manyprojectshavesomeriskanduncertaintieswhichwenotconsideritorallybutitcomesintoaccountwhenwe executeitpracticallywhichmakesincreaseintime,costandoverallocationofresources.

• ToOvercome,PlanningandSchedulingaredoneandtohavecrashedscheduleFollowingMethodsareused

 CrashingOfanActivity.

 CrashingUsingMicrosoftProject.

 SlackTime.

Iftimeisofsecondaryconcern,eachactivitycouldbeperformedatitslowestpossiblenormalcost.Ifcostisofsecondary importance,eachactivitycouldbespeededuptobecompletedintheleastcrashtime.Betweenthesetwolimitsliesthebestor optimalsolution.However,tofindsuchsolution,itrequirestheconsiderationofcomplexcollectionofconcurrent,interrelated, andoverlappingactivities.

Inordertocountertheunforeseendelays,Projectmanagementistheapplicationofknowledge,skill,toolsandtechniquesto project activities to meet the project requirements. The primary focus of this research is to compare actual and crashed schedulebyenhancingtheschedulethroughCrashing,SlacktimeandalternativeTechniquestotheworkplanningactivity usingMSP.

2. METHODOLOGY

1. DataCollection.

2. Workbreakdownstructure.

3. Maximumdurationisapplied.

4. AddingResources.

5. AssigningResources.

 Crashingusingovertime.

 Slacktimeforoptimization.

 Time&CostoptimizationusingAlternativeBuildingMaterialandTechniques.

6. ResultshowingTimeandCostOptimization.

7. Comparingactualandcrashedscheduleoftheproject.

3. PROJECT CASE STUDY

• Theresidentialprojectoftwofloors(G+1)signedbythecompanyfor8monthsiscompleted.Clientwantedhisproject tobecompletedinshorttime,accordinglyconstructionwasdonebythecompany.

• Inmyopinionthetimescheduleoftheprojecttoreachclientsatisfactioncanbereducedfurthermoreandcanobtain thebiggestprofitfromthisproject.SoIreplannedtheprojectandtriedtomakeadifferencetoshowhowtogetthe maximumprofitbycrashing.

• TheprojectlocatedinHulimangala,Bangaloresouth,andit’sabout1200sqft.

• Structure Builtuparea

Groundfloor 772.00sqft

Parkingarea 330.00sqft

Firstfloor 1102.00sqft

Theratebeforecrashing₹3,506,362/-,innumbers(Thirtyfivelakhsixtythreethousandsixtytworupeesonly).

4. PROJECT PLANNING

• ProjectPlanningisageneralandmostcommonterminconstructionmanagementwhichreferstoattaintheexpected goalsanddestinations.Planningisthekeytobringtheexpectedprojectsintorealityorinexistence

Fig-1 Work breakdown structure: Table-4.1 List of activities Table-4.2 List of resources

 Activitiescostandcrewformation: Table-4.3 Budget labor total cost Table-4.4 Budget material total cost Table- 4.5 Budget sub contract total cost

5. SCHEDULING AND CRASHING OF PROJECT

 Thescheduleisatooloratechnicofeveryprojectmanagementteamwhichisusedandpracticedtopredictmost probableprojectcompletiontimeandthusenablingthein/ontimeresourcesconceptionwhicharebudgetedonthe particularwork.

 Thenormaldurationoftheproject is228days

Fig-2 Scheduling with Normal duration

5.1 DURATION CRASHING

Tofinishthisactivity,thecrewshouldbeformedfrom7Labors,PCC&mixer.So,weassumedtohave1crewwith budgettotalcost/day=4500rupees Wefoundthatthiscrewwith100%productivitywillfinishtherequiredamount ofworkin3days.

Totallaborcost=4500x3=13500rupees

Materialcost(PCC&mixer)=19958rupees

Thereforetotalamountrequiredforthisactivityis 33458 rupees.

Crashing; nowweassumedwehave2crewsbutwefoundthatiftheonecrewgiveproductivityof100%,thetwo crews won’t get a completion rate by 200% due to crowdedness and the lack of supervisors and other considerations.Soweassumedthatifwehave2crewtheproductivitywillincreaseby160%to170% Sothisactivitywillbefinishedin2dayswithatotalcostof 37958 rupees

Table-5.1.1 duration crashing Example:PCCforfooting

ThemainapproachesforcrashingofanactivityinMicrosoftprojectis:

1.Apportioningadditionalresourcestotheprojectwhichmakeseasywayforcrashingofanactivity.

2.Overtimeallocatedtotheresourcesmainlyhumanresource.

3.Hiringadditionalresources.

4.ForEarlycompletionextrapayments.

5.2 ALTERNATIVE BUILDING MATERIAL AND TECHNIQUE

• Alternatematerialandtechniquenotonlycrashthetimebutalsocutsdowntheoverallcost

 Rat trap bond

 Rattrapbondisacavitywallconstructionandleadstoreductioninthequantityofbricksrequiredformasonrywork

 ByadoptingthismethodofbondingofbrickmasonrycomparedtotraditionalEnglish/Flemishbondmasonry,itis possibletoreduceinthematerialcostofbricksby25%and10%to15%inthemasonrycost.

 Thecavityinredtrapbondprovideseffectivethermalandsoundinsulation.

Fig-3 Scheduling with crashed duration

 Plank & Joist Roofing System

 PrecastRCCPlankandJoistisasystemwhichconsistsoftwotypesofprecaststructuralelementsPlank(whichislike asmallcomponentofabiggerroofslab)andJoist.Afterplacingprecastelements,in-situconcreteisplacedtogiveflat surface

 Thetechnologycanproveeconomicalifthenumberofplanksandjoistsaremore- suchasinthecaseofa2or3 storiedbuildings.

 Cost - Overall cost reduction by 15-20% because of reduction in steel consumption and because of faster roof constructiononcethewallsarecomplete.Itdoesn’trequireanymaterialforshutteringduringconstruction

 Time- Saves construction time – the slab can be ready in 2-3 days as compared to at least 14-21 days for a conventionalRCCslab

 Quality-Centralizedproductionprovidesabetter,durableandconsistentqualityroofascomparedtothequalityof conventionalRCCroofsinmountainregions

 Polycarbonate glass

 Polycarbonateisamaterialwhichcontainsagroupofcarbonatesintheirchemicallybuildstructure.Polycarbonateis mainlyassimilartoaconventionaltransparentglassbutinflexibleasplastic.Polycarbonateglassiseasilyinstalled, cutandeasilyavailableinribbedsinglesheetorflattwin-wallthicknesses.

 Useofpolycarbonatesheetismuchlesserthanthecostoftoughenedglass.Polycarbonatesheetislightweight,good fireresistant,provideUVprotectionandhashighimpactresistance.

5.2 PROJECT CRASHING METHOD

 TheProjectCrashingmethodwasusedtofindtheoptimumdurationandminimumcostoftheproject.Theprocedure forshorteningprojectdurationcanbesummarizedinthefollowingsteps:

 Drawtheprojectnetworkdiagram.

 CPMcalculationsandidentifythecriticalpath,usenormaldurationsandcostsforallactivities.

 Computethecostslopeforeachactivityfromthefollowingequation: cost slope = crash cost – normal cost / normal duration – crash duration

 Startbyshorteningtheactivitydurationonthecriticalpathwhichhastheleastcostslopeandnotbeenshortenedto itscrashduration.

 Reducethedurationofthecriticalactivitieswithleastcostslopeuntilitscrashdurationisreachedoruntilthecritical pathchanges..

 The cost increase due to activity shortening is calculated as the cost slope multiplied by the time of time units shortened.

 Continueuntilnofurthershorteningispossible,andthenthecrashpointisreached.

 Thisistheprojectdirect-cost/timerelationship.Byaddingtheprojectindirectcosttothiscurvetoobtaintheproject time/costcurve.Thiscurvegivestheoptimumdurationandminimumcost.

Fig-4 Network Diagram

Crash ability & cost slope

5.3.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT COST

 Directcost:Normalcostwhichwillbeassignedontoaselectedworkpackageorprojectactivity

Directcost=3506362rupees

 Indirectcost:Cost thatcan’tberelatedtoanyparticularworkpackageorprojectactivity

Engineer=20000/month

Supervisor=18000/month

Guard=11000/month

SoifweestimatethetotalsupervisorysalariesinMonthwillbe=49000rupees.

Indirectcostperday=1633.33rupees

Table-5.3.1

5.3.2 CRASHING TRIALS

Trial NO. DURATIONCRASHING DIRECT COST INDIRECT COST TOTAL COST 1 227 3470887 370766 3841653 2 226 3435412 369132 3804544 3 225 3414628 367499 3782127 4 224 3393844 365866 3759710 5 222 3375155 362599 3737754 6 221 3368055 360965 3729020 7 220 3361965 359331 3721296 8 218 3350515 356064 3706579 9 217 3346120 354430 3700550 10 215 3341652 351163 3692815 11 213 3341852 347896 3689748 12 212 3342452 346262 3688714 13 211 3343052 344628 3687680 14 208 3345152 339728 3684880 15 207 3345952 338094 3684046 16 205 3347752 334827 3682579 17 200 3352352 326660 3679012 18 196 3356552 320126 3676678 19 191 3361952 311959 3393911 20 190 3363152 310325 3673477 21 187 3366752 305425 3672177 22 186 3368102 303791 3671893 23 183 3372302 298891 3671193 24 180 3376802 293992 3670794 25 177 3382101 289092 3671193 26 176 3383901 287458 3671359 27 175 3385701 285824 3671525 28 174 3387501 284190 3671691 29 173 3389301 282556 3671857 30 172 3391101 280922 3672023 31 169 3397467 276022 3673489 32 165 3406467 269488 3675955 33 162 3414166 264588 3678754 34 159 3421865 259688 3681553 35 158 3424565 258054 3682619 36 157 3428765 256420 3685185 37 156 3433265 254786 3688051

Indirectcostoftheproject=228*1633.33=372400rupees

6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

 Result for Time Optimization

 Thedurationwhichisconventionallyobservedis228dayswhichisbeingdecreasedbycrashingandwiththehelpof slacktime.Theapproximatelyreduceddurationis145days.

 Majorlyforoptimizingtimethemethodologyextrahumanresourcesareusedandworkeasilywithoutanyhectic situations.

 The time optimization is also depending on how well a contractor organizes his work schedule with a proper utilizationofmaterial,machineriesandhumanresource

 Result For Cost Optimization

 Projectcostoptimizationisdonebyusingthealternativebuildingorientedmaterialswhichreadilycutdownthecost oftheprojectbutalsosatisfiesownerwithaneconomicalresult.

 Soforalternativebuildingmaterialaninsulatedstructuraltoughenedglassisreplacedbypolycarbonateglass,regular brickmasonryisreplacedbyRattrapbondtechniqueandregularRCCofslabisreplacedbyPlankandjoistroofing system,whichcutsthecostoftheproject.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2023 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 © 2023, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.226 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page23 38 155 3437765 253152 3890917 39 151 3455765 246618 3902383 40 150 3460565 244984 3705549 41 149 3466965 243350 3710315 42 148 3482365 241716 3724081 43 147 3497765 240082 3737847 44 146 3513165 238448 3751613 45 145 3528565 236815 3765380

Table-5.3.2 Crashing trials Fig-5 Comparison of actual time and crashed time of the project

 Thecostofpolycarbonatesheetis₹650/sqmwhichisconsiderablyverymuchlesscomparedtotoughenedglass whichis₹2400/sqmandbyrattrapbondandplankjoistroofingsystemcostreducedupto30%foreachreplaced activity.

 Thecostoftheprojectis ₹3878761,byapplyingcrashingand byapplyingthealternativematerialcosttheoverall costofthebuildingisreducedby₹3761401

7. CONCLUSION

 Fromtheresultswecanmaketwocomparativeconclusions:

1)Comparisonofactualtimeandcrashedtimeoftheproject.

2)Comparisonofactualcostandcrashedcostoftheproject.

 Fromprojectcrashingwecanconcludethat

1) Projectcrashingcostandindirectcosthaveinverserelationship.

2) Indirectcostincreasesasprojectdurationincreases.

3)Crashing cost are highest when the project is shortened, to overcome this we have used alternate materials and techniques.

 ThisprojectconcludesthatanyrelativeconstructionprojectmainlydependsontheTimeandCostconstraintswhich givesapropereconomicalweightagetoanyproject.

 A proper planning and scheduling will also make a huge differenceinconstruction projectconsidering the labor management

 Propermanagement,interpersonalmanagement,technicalmanagement,andtheuseoftechnologyinbuildingprojects mayallhelptoreducedelays.

 Clientwantedhisprojecttobecompletedfaster,companycanstillreducethetimetoreachclientsatisfactionandhe didn’t obtain the biggest profit from this project. So, after completion of the project, crashing is done to make a differenceandshowhowtogetthemaximumprofitfromit.

 Additionofhumanresourcesandalternativebuildingmaterialsliketoughenedglassisreplacedbypolycarbonate glass,regularbrickmasonryisreplacedbyRattrapbondtechniqueandregularRCCofslabisreplacedbyPlankand joistroofingsystem,whichcutsthetimeaswellascostoftheproject.

Fig-6 Comparison of actual cost and crashed cost of the project

 Asaresult,thetotaldurationofprojectwas228daysanditwasreducedto145daysusingcrashingandalsocostof ₹117360wasdecreasedfromtheactualcost.

REFERENCES

1. KomeshSahuandMeenaSahu(2014),Costandtimeandalsominimumprojectdurationusingalternativemethod, Internationalreviewofappliedengineeringresearch,vol-4,no5,pp,403-412

2. Bhushan V.Tatar and Prof.Rahul S.patil (2016),Time and cost optimization techniques in construction project management,

3. Shifat Ahmed et.al (2016), Minimize time and cost for Successful completion of a Large scale project . Planning, schedulinganddelayanalysiscasestudyRathodRajshekharGopal (2016)

4. AkashLankeandD.Venkateswarlu(2016),DesignCost&TimeAnalysisofPrecast&RCCBuilding.ComparativeStudy OfTime-costOptimizationDileepkumarreddyandVenkatavaraPrasad(2018)

5. FloatTimeReductionPotentialInConstructionProjectAndItsImpactShubhendraKumarMishraandSarthakSingh Rajput.(2020)

6. ToStudyAdvancedProjectPlanningAndScheduling-caseStudyMr.GunjalKartikeyanandMr.RohitGholap(2021)

BIOGRAPHIES

Sanjay jagadeshwara E

ReceivedB.E(civilengineering)

From Acharya institute of technology&pursuingM-tech (constructiontechnology)in Universityvisvesvarayacollegeof engineering,Bangaloreuniversity

Dr. Nagaraj P S

Professor,CivilEngineeringDept. UniversityVisvesvarayaCollege ofEngineering,Bangalore University