KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2021) 25(7):2350-2359 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-021-1427-5 www.springer.com/12205

Construction Management

Optimization of Construction Material Cost through Logistics Planning

Model of Dragonfly Algorithm – Particle Swarm Optimization
a a a
Pham Vu Hong Son , Nguyen Huynh Chi Duy , and Pham Ton Dat
a
Construction Engineering & Management Department, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (Bach Khoa University),
Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh 700000, Vietnam

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 12 August 2020 Managing a construction project is challenging because of cost, time, safety, and quality
Revised 6 January 2021 considerations. In the most projects, the cost of construction is one of the most critical aspect
Accepted 17 February 2021 because material cost alone accounts for significant ratio of the total project. Therefore, the
Published Online 12 April 2021 cost of construction materials should be controlled. In this study, we proposed the use of
material requirements planning (MRP) to control the cost of construction materials. After
KEYWORDS determining the demand for the materials required for construction, we estimated both the
quantity of materials required and time taken to deliver the materials to the construction site.
Construction logistics planning Although economic order quantity models have been applied to analyze construction material
Optimizing material costs, they do not accurately reflect concerns related to material cost. Therefore, we used the
Inventory control material supply chain model (construction logistics planning) to analyze material costs. To
Dragonfly algorithm
optimize MRP according to the current progress of a project, a novel approach combining the
PSO algorithm
dragonfly algorithm (DA) and particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSO) was proposed. To
Optimize delivery schedules
verify the advanced searchability of the DA–PSO algorithm, the algorithm was compared with
Time to import construction materials
the gray wolf and the genetic algorithms.

1. Introduction in warehousing at the construction site. The issue of increasing

Cost is one of the four critical factors that determine the success
of a project, the other three being time, quality, and safety. The
cost of construction materials accounts for more than half of the
value of a construction project, so the management of material
cost is one of the essential criteria on which the success of the
project (Polat and Arditi, 2005; Georgy and Basily Sameh, 2008).
To adequately control the cost of construction materials, there is
the need to accurately and reasonably carry out material requirements
planning (MRP).
In the construction phase, the time is limited and construction
contractors are only concerned about human resources and
construction methods to meet the schedule, while paying little
attention to construction materials. Therefore, negative consequences
are prone to happen – delay and waste of human resources and
machinery when materials do not meet construction needs. Also,
worry about the shortage of materials may result in the ordering
of more materials than needed; this may lead to many difficulties
the warehousing area is not feasible because the site layout is
mainly for construction (the warehouse area only accounts for a
small part of the site plan). Besides, when too many materials are
ordered, the storage time is prolonged, leading to quality deterioration
(additional costs). Hence, the problem poses a need to balance the
construction materials to meet the actual construction schedule and
storage size of the site.
The purpose of this paper is to find the best material requirements
planning based on the construction schedule. Managers can save
costs when they adopt good MRP, which increases the project
profit and competition in the current construction market (Behera et
al., 2015). To verify the suitability of combining the DA-PSO
algorithm and the CLP model, we will compare the CLP model
processed by the grey wolf optimization (GWO), the CLP model
processed by the genetic algorithm, and the CLP model processed
by the DA-PSO algorithm.
This research focuses on developing and setting up a model to
find suitable material requirements planning and appropriate

CORRESPONDENCE Nguyen Huynh Chi Duy nhcduy007@gmail.com Construction Engineering & Management Department, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology
(Bach Khoa University), Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh 700000, Vietnam
ⓒ 2021 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

warehouse sizes.
2. Literature Review
Economic order quantity (EOQ) model is the ideal order quantity
a company should purchase to minimize inventory costs such as
holding costs, shortage costs, and order costs (Bose et al., 1995).
The EOQ model uses the following assumptions: demand is
continuous and constant; the process continues infinitely; and
there are no quantity constraints (on order quantity or storage
capacity). Construction is generally considered prone to many
risks. Construction is generally considered to be prone to many
risks. If we use the EOQ model with the above assumptions, it
will not be feasible and cannot be applied to the site.
The construction logistics planning (CLP) model were developed
to optimize construction costs with warehouse constraints and
material demand (Hsu et al., 2018; Nolz, 2020). The supply chain of
construction materials is divided into four main components: 1)
ordering and shipping costs (ordering cost – OC); 2) financial
cost (FC); 3) cost of delay (stock-out cost – SC); and 4) cost of
transportation and site layout (layout cost – LC). Some advantages
of the CLP model over the Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)
model are the discount in material unit prices and the cost of
delay and shipping of materials (Roach, 2005; Jaśkowski et al.,
2018). Moreover, to determine the material requirements plan,
the time between material purchase orders (fixed ordering period
– FOP) is considered (Mao and Cheng, 2010). Every stage of
construction poses changes in demand for materials and warehouse
size, so the FOP at each stage is flexible. This research will combine
the FOP and optimal warehouse size to suit each construction
stage, with the objective of cost optimization.
Genetic algorithm (GA) is a random search algorithm based
on the natural selection of matching individuals. GA consists of
three important steps: selection, crossover and mutation. Then,
an initial population is randomly initialized and the fitness of
each chromosome is assessed against the objective functions.
Based on adaptability, a selection process is conducted and new
candidate solutions are created through a process of crossbreeding
between parents to create a new generation. During a mutation,
genes are changed at a number of randomly selected locations.
Then a new population is created for the next loop (Zheng Daisy
et al., 2004).
The particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is also
another well-regarded SI paradigm. Eberhart and Kennedy (1995)
proposed this algorithm with an idea mimics the foraging and
navigation behaviour of bird flocks. The main inspiration originates
from the simple rules of interactions between birds: birds tend to
maintain their fly direction towards their current directions, the
best location of food source obtained so far, and the best location
of the food that the swarm found so far (Eberhart and Yuhui,
2001). The PSO algorithm simply mimics these three rules and
guides the particles towards the best optimal solutions by each of
the individuals and the swarm simultaneously.
Thomas et al. (2005) investigated the impact of material
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2351
procurement and supply decisions on construction labor productivity.
Ala-Risku and Kärkkäinen (2006) presented a potential solution
for managing the material logistics of construction projects. The
solution consists of a shipment tracking-based approach to provide
inventory transparency, and a pro-active material delivery approach
for timely material availability. Min and Sui Pheng (2005)
introduced use of just-in-time (JIT) and economic order quantity
(EOQ) purchasing in recent years. From there, compare the
strengths and weaknesses of each method. Georgy and Basily
Sameh (2008) used material requirement planning (MRP) systems
and genetic algorithms to optimize material cost, but warehouse
size was fixed and unit price of material not including discount.
Mao and Cheng (2010), presented the last planner system for
managing the material logistics of construction projects. Despite
the significant contributions, these studies did not investigate the
critical and mutual interdependencies between warehouse constraints
and material demand. Said and El-Rayes (2011) used the material
supply chain model and GA algorithm to optimize construction
material costs. However, the article has limited use of GA
algorithm that easily leads to local optimization (Not the best
results). Jaśkowski et al. (2018) used economic order quantity
model and proposed mixed integer linear programming model is
minimizing the total inventory management cost. The economic
order quantity model has many limitations mentioned above;
does not reflect sufficient material costs during the construction
process. Besides, Mathematical Methods (linear programming)
does not give good results by the method of Meta-Heuristic (GA;
PSO; DA, etc.).
This study proposes to use the hybrid algorithm, the dragonfly
algorithm (Mirjalili, 2016) and the PSO algorithm (Marini and
Walczak, 2015), to optimize the optimization of construction
material cost with the hope of improving the search results. Also,
this study gives contractors a choice of considering the time
between material purchase (FOP) and warehouse size to find the
most suitable solution for each construction stage. This study
will validate the results of combining the DA-PSO algorithm by
comparing them with the results of the grey wolf (GWO) and
genetics algorithms (GA), which hopefully will establish the
accuracy and reliability of the hybrid algorithm.
3. Model Development
This study proposes a model for material requirements planning
using a hybrid algorithm, the DA-PSO algorithm, to find the optimal
material demand plan in terms of cost for the project. The
effectiveness of this model will be proved using specific examples.
3.1 Construction Logistics Planning (CLP)
The construction logistics planning model classifies material
costs into four main components:
1. Ordering Cost (OC): This is the cost of purchasing and
transporting materials to the construction site.
2. Financing Cost (FC): When buying in bulk, the contractor
gets a high discount from the supplier. However, in return,
2352 P. V. H. Son et al.

the CLP model will have additional financial costs – the
cost the contractor spends in advance to buy large quantities of
materials therefore capital is tied up in materials inventory
(Mitsel et al., 2017).
3. Stock-out Cost (SC): The cost of delay (Panova and
Hilletofth, 2018).
4. Layout Cost (LC): This is the cost of transporting materials
in the construction site. Therefore, we can see that construction
logistics planning (CLP) reflects correctly and thoroughly all
kinds of costs during the management of construction
materials, which helps in striking an appropriate balance
between the different types of expenses (ordering costs,
financial costs, stock-out cost and layout cost for storage and
construction site). Using the construction logistics planning
model to analyze the material cost (objective function) is
entirely reasonable and objective. Therefore, we conduct
searching and optimization of material demand plan at
different stages with the CLP model and the DA-PSO
algorithm.
Fixed Ordering Period (FOP): Planning the procurement of
supplies and transports in the model is done by determining the
optimal ordering time for each material that changes flexibly to
consider the demand for materials used throughout the project.
As shown in Fig. 1, the procurement of materials in each phase
(t) is built as a fixed-time ordering system (FOP) that replaces
inventories at the beginning of fixed intervals when there are
new orders to meet the demand for the next period.
FOP is divided into 2 main types:
FOP = 1: The trend of day-to-day supply of materials is equal
to the demand for the daily use of materials, i.e., the materials are
ordered just in time. With FOP = 1, the inventory will be discarded
because each day the material is provided by demand.
FOP > 1: The trend of ordering materials within a particular
time in advance. With FOP > 1, the inventory will appear.
3.2 Implementation Process
This section presents a detailed description of the search and
analysis of effective material requirements planning to optimize
material costs. The construction logistics planning (CLP) model
is used to review and analyze material costs with input parameters
and constraint conditions. Input parameters and constraint conditions
include construction progress, quantity of materials used for each
task, material unit price, and exchange rate coefficient. The DA-
PSO algorithm will then be used to determine the material
requirements plan that will minimize the material cost.
3.2.1 Simulation Process
Step 1: Determine the minimum required material use per day.

Fig. 1. Types of Fixed Ordering Period (FOP) (Said and El-Rayes, 2011)

Table1. Daily Use of Material for Each Task

Dec-2018 Jan-2019
Task Start Finish
24/12 25/12 26/12 27/12 28/12 29/12 30/12 31/12 01/01 02/01 03/01 04/01 05/01 06/01 07/01 08/01 09/01
A 24/12/2018 08/01/2019 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 0.0
B 26/12/2018 01/03/2019 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
C 29/12/2018 26/01/2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
D 31/12/2018 24/02/2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
E 01/01/2019 10/01/2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1
F 03/01/2019 12/01/2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1
G 05/01/2019 14/01/2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1
Daily demand of materials 5.1 5.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 8.8 8.8 10.5 18.6 18.6 26.7 26.7 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 29.7
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2353

Before developing a suitable material requirements plan, we cohesion; f is the food factor; e is the enemy factor; w is the
need to determine the minimum daily need for materials. In this inertial weight.
paper, we use the Last Planner System (Khanh and Kim, 2016) The avoidance of the static crashing of an individual into other
to determine the minimum daily need of materials by following individuals in the neighborhood, which is known as separation, is
these steps: calculated by Eq. (4):
1. Based on the construction schedule, we list all tasks that N
will be accomplished using materials whose use needs to Si = −∑ ( X − X j ) , (4)
be optimized (Olivieri et al., 2019). j =1

2. We determine the duration of each task (in the same unit: where X is the position of the current individual, Xj is the position
day, month or year). of the j-th neighboring individual, and N is the number of
3. We determine the quantities of materials used for each task. neighboring individuals.
4. We determine the daily quantities of materials for each Alignment, which refers to the matching of the velocity of an
task. individual to the velocity of others in the neighborhood, is computed
From the approved construction progress, we proceed to the by Eq. (5):
above-mentioned steps. We will accurately determine the minimum N
required material use per day at the construction site as in Table 1. ∑
j=
Xj
1 , (5)
Table 1 shows an example of the process of listing all project Ai =
activities and the amount of material used for each task. From N
there we can determine the exact amount of material used for the where Xj shows the velocity of the j-th neighboring individual.
project on each construction day, which will be done for each Cohesion, which is the propensity of individuals to be attracted
material in this project. towards the center of mass of the neighborhood, is given by Eq. (6):
Step 2: Declare the input parameters. N
The necessary data for the required CLP model are ∑
j=1
Xj
, (6)
1. OC costs: Material unit price; transportation cost; Ci = −X
2. FC cost: Material interest; N
3. SC costs: Late schedule penalties; where X is the position of the current individual, N is the number
4. LC costs: Cost of transport equipment; change in site of neighborhoods, and Xj is the position of the j-th neighboring
layout. individual.
Constraints: Fixed time limits between material needs (FOP); Attraction towards a food source, computed by Eq. (7), should be
warehouse size limit. the main objective for any swarm to survive:
Step 3: Initialize the first population. Initializing a population
F = X+ − X , (7)
by a random method of the algorithm helps ensure the objectivity i

of the population. The population in the study is the amount of
material in each material requirements plan during the period.
Populations are directed to more energetic areas if they find
potential prey and, conversely, they will look for new search
areas if the current prey does not look promising enough.
Each population will be checked for conditions of warehouse
size and material inventory. Each population is calculated to find
the best population in each loop as shown in Eq. (1):
CLC = ∑(OC + FC + SC + LC) .
Step 4: Improve the population. During the optimization
process, the populations are constantly changing and updating
based on the optimal parameters and equations of the DA-PSO
algorithm. The DA-PSO algorithm is a development algorithm
combining the PSO (Jia and Guo, 2016) and DA algorithms as
shown in Eqs. (2) and (3).
DA Algorithm:
ΔX +1 = (sS + α A + cC + fF + eE ) + wΔX ,
t i i i i i t
X +1 = X + ΔX +1 ,
t t t
s is the separation weight; α is the alignment weight; c indicates the
where X is the position of the current individual and X+ shows
the position of the food source.
Distraction of an enemy, which is computed by Eq. (8), is
another survival objective for the swarm:
E = X− − X ,
i
(8)
where X is the position of the current individual and X − shows
the position of the enemy.
PSO:
(1)
Vi (t ) = w(t ) ×Vi (t − 1) + C1r1 ×[X iL − X i (t − 1)] + C2 r2 ×[X iG − X i (t −1)]
(9)
Xi (t ) = Vi (t ) + X i (t − 1)
1. i = 1, 2, ..., P where P is the total number of individuals in
the population
2. t = 1, 2, ..., T where T is the number of limited generations
(or number of iterations)
3. X Li = { X Li1, X Li 2, …, X LiM } represents the best position the
individual achieves after (t − 1) loop (called pbest)
(2) G G G G
4. X i = { X i1, X i2, …, X iM } represents the best position of
the whole population after (t − 1) loop (called gbest)
(3)
5. C1 and C2 are the learning factors
6. r1 and r2: changes from 0 to 1 are random standards
2354 P. V. H. Son et al.

Table 2. Input Parameters

Steel Unit price
Unit price of materials (ton) (million VND / ton)
purchased 0 --- 50 15
50 --- 100 14
Steel Unit Price
(ton) (million VND)
0 --- 30 5.5
Material shipping unit
30 --- 60 11
60 --- 90 16.5
90 --- 120 22
Daily interest rate 0.1% / day
Late schedule penalties 61.5 million VND / day
Tower crane unit price 2.08 million VND / day
Tower crane productivity 17.34 ton / hour

stop searching if they cannot improve the results further or when

they reach the maximum number of iterations. This study uses
the maximum number of iterations as a stopping condition for
the proposed model.
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the Optimal Algorithm

4. Model Validation and Applications

regenerated for each updating velocity
7. w(t) is the inertial weight, used to control the effect of the
tire loop rate on the current loop rate; w(t) helps to balance
local experience with practical experience.
Step 5: The optimization process ends when the conditions
are met. The user can set conditional parameters. In fact, objects
The proposed model was validated by comparing the simulation
results of the model with those obtained with the genetic
algorithm (GA) and the gray wolf (GWO) algorithm for a high-
rise apartment project in Ho Chi Minh city. The duration of the
project was 199 days (December 24, 2018, to July 10, 2019).

Table 3. Daily Project Demand for Materials (steel)

From 24-Dec 5-Jan 8-Jan 9-Jan 22-Jan 27-Jan 2-Feb
To 4-Jan 7-Jan 8-Jan 21-Jan 26-Jan 1-Feb 10-Feb
Daily demand of material (Tons) 5.1 5.5 9.8 4.7 8 3.7 0
From 11-Feb 24-Feb 25-Feb 2-Mar 5-Mar 6-Mar 14-Mar
To 23-Feb 24-Feb 1-Mar 4-Mar 5-Mar 13-Mar 14-Mar
Daily demand of material (Tons) 3.7 11.8 8.5 8.1 16.2 8.1 16.2
From 15-Mar 23-Mar 24-Mar 30-Mar 31-Mar 6-Apr 7-Apr
To 22-Mar 23-Mar 29-Mar 30-Mar 5-Apr 6-Apr 12-Apr
Daily demand of material (Tons) 8.1 18.2 10.1 20.3 10.4 20.3 10.1
From 13-Apr 14-Apr 20-Apr 21-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 4-May
To 13-Apr 19-Apr 20-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 3-May 4-May
Daily demand of material (Tons) 20.3 10.1 20.3 10.1 20.3 10.1 20.3
From 5-May 11-May 12-May 18-May 19-May 24-May 25-May
To 10-May 11-May 17-May 18-May 23-May 24-May 29-May
Daily demand of material (Tons) 10.1 20.3 10.1 21.7 11.6 23.1 11.6
From 30-May 31-May 5-Jun 6-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun 17-Jun
To 30-May 4-Jun 5-Jun 10-Jun 11-Jun 16-Jun 17-Jun
Daily demand of material (Tons) 23.1 11.6 23.1 11.6 23.1 11.6 23.1
From 18-Jun 23-Jun 24-Jun 29-Jun 30-Jun 5-Jul 6-Jul
To 22-Jun 23-Jun 28-Jun 29-Jun 4-Jul 5-Jul 10-Jul
Daily demand of material (Tons) 11.6 23.1 11.6 23.1 11.6 25.1 13.5
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2355

Fig. 3. Relationship between the Material Cost and Warehouse Size in Fig. 4. Relationship between the Material Cost and Warehouse Size in
Phase 1 Phase 2

The project comprised 1 basement and 22 floors. Steel was the

material of choice for the study. Construction materials were first
transported to the construction site and then stored properly to
avoid any effects of weather. Because the building is in the city,
the limited warehouse area was a concern. The objective of the
study was to help the contractor compare various fixed ordering
period (FOP) and warehouse size options to design the optimal
material requirements plan (MRP).
The project was categorized into three phases according to the
site plan:
1. Phase 1: Structure basement from December 24, 2018, to
February 24, 2019 (63 days).
2. Phase 2: Super structure from February 25, 2019, to May Fig. 5. Relationship between Material Cost and Warehouse in Phase 3
20, 2019 (85 days).
3. Phase 3: Finishing from May 21, 2019, to July 10, 2019 (51 Summary of results after optimization:
days). The red line represents the relationship between the material
The input parameters were as follows: cost (left vertical axis) and FOP; the blue line denotes the
Optimal results by DA-PSO algorithm: relationship between the material size (right vertical axis) and
Phase 1: From 24/12/2018 to 24/02/2019 (63 days) FOP. As displayed in Figs. 4, 5, and 6, for each phase, an inverse
Phase 2: From 25/02/2019 to 20/05/2019 (85 days) relationship exists between material cost and the size of the
Phase 3: From 21/05/2019 to 10/07/2019 (51 days) material storage; when the cost of materials decreases, the size of

Table 4. Warehouse Size and Material Cost (Phase 1)

FOP 1 3 4 5 7 9 11 14
Warehouse 11.8 20 40.2 60 78.9 79.3 80 82.3
CLC 6,414.3 4,824 4,581.4 4,535 4,218.1 4,183.4 4,083.6 4,000.25

Table 5. Warehouse Size and Material Cost (Phase 2)

FOP 1 3 4 5 7 9 11 14
Warehouse 21.7 46.8 56.4 76.2 85.3 113.2 127 165.8
CLC 17,246.0 14,949.5 14,419.0 13,648.5 13,516.8 13,424.2 13,379.3 13,371.6

Table 6. Warehouse Size and Material Cost (Phase 3)

FOP 1 3 4 5 7 9 11 14
Warehouse 25.1 70.6 85.9 93.8 115.8 126 139.6 198.1
CLC 12,685.4 10,560.4 10,327.4 10,262.1 10,162.0 10,100.0 10,080.7 10,062.5
2356 P. V. H. Son et al.
Table 7. Result of the Project
PHASE
1 2
Fixed Ordering Period 4 4
Duration (day) 63
(24/12-24/02)
Demand of material (Ton) 270.2
Warehouse size (Ton) 40.2
Material Cost OC (Ordering Cost) 4,135.5
(Million VND) FC (Financing Cost) 11.35
SC (Stock-out Cost) 430.5
LC (Layout Cost) 4.05
CLC 4,581.4
the warehouse increases, and vice versa. This phenomenon is
reasonable. To obtain a high discount from the supplier, the
contractor buys larger quantities of material than actually required,
which results in more inventories. Therefore, large warehouses
are necessary.
The intersection of the warehouse-size–FOP and material
cost–FOP relationship curves is considered optimal outcome and
provides optimal FOP results, warehouse size, and corresponding
costs. The optimum research point is the equilibrium position
corresponding to the minimum values of the material cost and
warehouse size. However, the decision-maker may choose different
optimal goals according to the perspective of the manager or the
situation at the site. For example, if a warehouse area larger than
the construction site is not a feasible solution, the decision-maker
should consider a reasonable FOP to achieve the most beneficial
results based on the relationship curve.
The relationship curve chart indicates that the further a point
is from the optimal point (increasing FOP), the lower is the cost
reduction and the higher is the increase in the warehouse
capacity. For example, in phase 1, the FOP increased from 4 to 5.
Therefore, for a material cost reduction of 46.4 million, the
warehouse capacity must increase by 19.8 tons; in phase 2, the
FOP increased from 11 to 14. Therefore, for a material cost
reduction of 7.7 million, the warehouse size must increase to
38.8 tons. However, this approach is not optimal because the
warehouse size increases excessively, whereas the cost benefit is
negligible.
Purchases and shipping (OC) accounts for the highest proportion
(90%) of material costs, SC accounts for the second-highest
proportion (5%), and FC and LC account for the rest. Therefore,
to reduce material management costs, contractors focus on OC
but not on other costs. To minimize OC, managers negotiate and
purchase materials in large quantities to obtain the highest
discount from the supplier. When the volume purchased is larger
than the volume required, it leads to an inventory surplus.
Therefore, a large warehouse is required to store this inventory
surplus. However, the size of the warehouse is a problem that the
contractor cannot control because it depends on the size of the
SUMMARY
3
3
85 51 199
(25/02-20/05) (21/05-10/07) (24/12/2018-10/07/2019)
918.8 695.1 1,884.1
56.4 70.6 70.6
13,696.5 10,003 27,835
32.26 24.28 67.89
676.5 522.75 1,629.75
13.78 10.42 28.25
14,419.0 10,560.5 29,560.9
construction site. Therefore, the warehouse selection, cost, and
FOP are critical. The relationship diagram enables managers to
take optimal decisions.
Currently, for most projects, contractors have to spend money
on construction first and then claim the money from investors.
Because the cost of a construction project is high, contractors
typically borrow from a bank. Because contractors have to buy
materials in large quantities to avail a high discount from suppliers,
considerable money is invested in the material inventory. Therefore,
unreasonable revenue and expenditure plans are risky and may
result in considerable amounts of losses for or even bankruptcy
for contractors if the purchased inventory is not utilized. Therefore,
in addition to OC, other cost-related factors should be controlled
to optimize construction costs.
The optimal FOP results in phases 1, 2, and 3 are 4, 4, and 3,
respectively. The FOP is in the range 3 – 4, which indicated that
materials were ordered every 3 or 4 days. This approach presented
the following advantages:
The proposed method approach minimized capital spending
on inventory, which reduced the amount of money borrowed
from the bank and resulted in the availability of additional money
for investment in other areas, such as efficient construction methods,
to improve project quality and expedite development; thus, the
brand of the company was enhanced. Furthermore, the cash flow
plan of the project was controlled.
This approach eliminates the necessity of large storage spaces.
Therefore, the approach facilitates the use of small warehouses
in construction sites. Currently, most construction projects in big
cities (Ho Chi Minh, Hanoi, Da Nang, and Hai Phong) have
limited construction sites. Thus, small warehouse size is the
primary constraint in the site layout. The FOP value that corresponds
with a small warehouse is selected to address this constraint.
Furthermore, with advantages such as reduction in bank loan
costs, a short FOP is critical for construction enterprises in
setting up material supply plans for the construction site.
Moreover, a short FOP maintains low surplus of inventory
because new materials are purchased when required. The quality
of such fresh products remains superior to those stored for a long

term. When stored for too long, the quality of the material may
be easily degraded by the surrounding environment. In many
cases, the quality of the material has to be retested because
materials have been in stock for too long. Reinspection of quality
is not recommended because it directly affects the progress of the
project.
Therefore, decision makers should be flexible and consider
factors, including objective and subjective factors, before taking
final decisions.
The results of the analysis indicate that the approach was
reasonable and practical. To verify the feasibility of these results,
we compared results of the dragonfly algorithm (DA)–particle
swarm optimization (PSO) model with the GA and the GWO
algorithm.
Comparison of DA–PSO with GWO and GA
We considered phase 2, the phase with the most demand for
materials, for the comparison.
According to Table 7, the DA–PSO algorithm outperformed
the GWO and GA algorithms in terms of cost and warehouse
optimization. The optimized material cost obtained using the
DA–PSO algorithm was less than those obtained using the GWO
and GA algorithms, which were 4.1 million and 10.2 million
dollars higher than the DA–PSO value, respectively.
Figure 6 displays that with 500 loops, the DA–PSO algorithm
provides better solutions than those of the other two options
The reasons for the superior performance of the DA–PSO
algorithm are discussed.
Because of hybridization, selection, and mutation, the GA
exhibits an extensive search area. However, scrambling by a
random mechanism and not following specific rules does not
Table 8. Result of the Project
Algorithm
Material cost Warehouse
(million VND) (ton)
DA-PSO 13,516.8 85.3
GWO 13,520.9 87.5
GA 13,527 88.4
Fig. 6. Convergence History in Phase 2
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2357
guarantee the optimal solution, which is the major drawback of
the GA because the population that could have been closer to a
better position is inadvertently disturbed to obtain optimal
results. Therefore, the convergence chart of the GA tends to have
many long horizontal lines because the optimal position could
not be determined due to this disturbance (Li et al., 2020).
In the GWO algorithm, optimization is performed based on a
hierarchy of alpha (best), beta (second best), and delta (third best)
solutions. The next position is updated based on the positions of the
three solutions. Thus, alpha, beta, and delta estimate the optimal
positions and other solutions update their positions randomly
around the current optimal positions. Therefore, the GWO algorithm
exhibits a strong advantage in the exploitation stage compared
with other algorithms. The expansion of the search area relies
only on the vectors in the optimal equation, which results in a
lack of diversity of the population; the limited expansion of the
search area is a drawback of the GWO algorithm. Therefore, for
a problem with large search spaces, the GWO algorithm easily
falls into local optimization (Hatta et al., 2019).
The DA can easily expand its search space. The algorithm is
based on the behavior of a dragonfly, which often changes
direction suddenly. On combining with the Levy algorithm, the
search area can be increased rapidly, rendering the search space
of the DA algorithm larger than those of other algorithms.
However, the optimization capability (exploitation) of the DA is
extremely slow and easily leads to local optimization. The PSO
algorithm was combined with the DA algorithm to overcome the
shortcomings of the DA. The PSO algorithm is an excellent
spatial exploitation algorithm because it regularly updates the
best location of the population, directs the individuals to the best
location, and updates the best location of the population in each
loop based on the optimal function. Thus, in the DA–PSO model,
the DA is used to expand the search (exploration) space, whereas
the PSO algorithm is used to explore the space that has been
searched by the DA. Therefore, the DA–PSO model outperforms
the GA and the GWO algorithm.
5. Conclusions
Cost management is critical in a construction project. However,
construction material costs are not optimized in most projects.
Contractors have to purchase construction material first and then
claim the money from investors. Because construction projects
are expensive, contractor often borrows money from banks. If the
cash flow (revenue and expenditure) is not planned, then contractors
may incur losses and go bankrupt. Therefore, to effectively manage
material costs during the construction process, in addition to the
ordering cost, other costs such as financing cost, stock-out cost,
and layout cost should be considered. The proposed model helps
project contractors to properly manage project costs to achieve
the highest profit.
Contractors cannot control the problem of the size of the
warehouse because the size of the warehouse depends on the
construction site. Therefore, the warehouse size, cost, and FOP
2358 P. V. H. Son et al.
options should be carefully considered; the relationship diagram
is used obtain optimal conditions. The proposed approach
provides flexibility in decision-making. Project managers should
consider constraint conditions and other factors, including
objective and subjective factors, for determining the optimal
material cost for the available storage space in each phase of the
construction.
Optimal results are obtained for short FOPs (approximately
3 – 4 days) because of the following reasons: First, contractors
borrow less money from banks and cash flow can be easily
controlled. Second, a large storage space is not required. Therefore,
the site layout need not be too big. Because most construction
projects in major city centers have limited space, a short FOP is
suitable. Thus, a short FOP addresses construction limitation for
managers. Furthermore, a short FOP limits material inventory
surplus because materials are regularly purchased and updated
continuously. Therefore, high-quality materials are guaranteed.
Thus, construction enterprises should prioritize short FOPs for
the construction site.
Furthermore, the solution provided by the proposed DA–PSO
model was compared with the solutions provided by the GA and
the GWO algorithm to evaluate the suitability of the DA–PSO
model in solving single-target problems with a large and dependent
search space (MRP). The DA–PSO model outperformed the GA
and PSO algorithm. Therefore, DA–PSO algorithm is suitable
for achieving optimal results in limited time.
This study can be extended in many directions in the future.
The cost of construction materials is not constant but changes
randomly. Therefore, future studies should consider the uncertainty
of the unit price of materials. Furthermore, the supplier capacity
is a high-risk factor and should be considered.
Acknowledgments
Not Applicable
ORCID
Pham Vu Hong Son https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9788-0627
Nguyen Huynh Chi Duy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2201-955X
Pham Ton Dat https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2343-1084
References
Ala-Risku T, Kärkkäinen M (2006) Material delivery problems in
construction projects: A possible solution. International Journal of
Production Economics 104:19-29, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.12.027
Behera P, Mohanty RP, Prakash A (2015) Understanding construction
supply chain management. Production Planning & Control 26:1332-
1350, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2015.1045953
Bose S, Goswami A, Chaudhuri KS (1995) An EOQ model for deteriorating
items with linear time-dependent demand rate and shortages under
inflation and time discounting. Journal of the Operational Research
Society 46:771-782, DOI: 10.1057/jors.1995.107
Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm
theory. Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro
machine and human science (MHS'95), October 4-6, Nagoya, Japan
Eberhart RC, Yuhui S (2001) Particle swarm optimization: Developments,
applications and resources. Proceedings of the 2001 congress on
evolutionary computation (IEEE Cat No01TH8546), May 27-30,
Seoul, Korea, 81-86
Georgy M, Basily SY (2008) Using genetic algorithms in optimizing
construction material delivery schedules. Construction Innovation
8:23-45, DOI: 10.1108/14714170810846503
Hatta NM, Zain AM, Sallehuddin R, Shayfull Z, Yusoff Y (2019) Recent
studies on optimisation method of grey wolf optimiser (GWO): A
review (2014-2017). Artificial Intelligence Review 52:2651-2683,
DOI: 10.1007/s10462-018-9634-2
Hsu P-Y, Angeloudis P, Aurisicchio M (2018) Optimal logistics planning
for modular construction using two-stage stochastic programming.
Automation in Construction 94:47-61, DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.
05.029
Jaśkowski P, Sobotka A, Czarnigowska A (2018) Decision model for
planning material supply channels in construction. Automation in
Construction 90:235-242, DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.026
Jia Q, Guo Y (2016) Hybridization of ABC and PSO algorithms for
improved solutions of RCPSP. Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Engineers 39:727-734, DOI: 10.1080/02533839.2016.1176866
Khanh HD, Kim SY (2016) A survey on production planning system in
construction projects based on last planner system. KSCE Journal of
Civil Engineering 20(1):1-11, DOI: 10.1007/s12205-015-1412-y
Li Y, Huang Z, Xie Y (2020) Path planning of mobile robot based on
improved genetic algorithm. 2020 3rd international conference on
electron device and mechanical engineering (ICEDME), May 1-3,
Suzhou, China, 691-695
Mao H, Cheng P (2010) Design of material delivery system based on
lean construction. International conference of logistics engineering
and management (ICLEM), October 8-10, Chengdu, China, 1793-
1799
Marini F, Walczak B (2015) Particle swarm optimization (PSO). A
tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 149:153-
165, DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2015.08.020
Min W, Sui Pheng L (2005) Economic order quantity (EOQ) versus
just-in-time (JIT) purchasing: An alternative analysis in the ready-
mixed concrete industry. Construction Management and Economics
23(4):409-422, DOI: 10.1080/01446190500041339
Mirjalili S (2016) Dragonfly algorithm: A new meta-heuristic optimization
technique for solving single-objective, discrete, and multi-objective
problems. Neural Computing and Applications 27:1053-1073, DOI:
10.1007/s00521-015-1920-1
Mitsel AA, Kritski OL, Stavchuk LG (2017) An inventory model with
random demand. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 803:012099,
DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/803/1/012099
Nolz PC (2020) Optimizing construction schedules and material deliveries
in city logistics: A case study from the building industry. Flexible
Services and Manufacturing Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10696-020-
09391-7
Olivieri H, Seppänen O, Alves TdCL, Scala NM, Schiavone V, Liu M,
Granja AD (2019) Survey comparing critical path method, last planner
system, and location-based techniques. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 145:04019077, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0001644
Panova Y, Hilletofth P (2018) Managing supply chain risks and delays
in construction project. Industrial Management & Data Systems

118:1413-1431, DOI: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-0422
Polat G, Arditi D (2005) The JIT materials management system in
developing countries. Construction Management and Economics
23:697-712, DOI: 10.1080/01446190500041388
Roach B (2005) Origin of the economic order quantity formula;
Transcription or transformation? Management Decision 43:1262-
1268, DOI: 10.1108/00251740510626317
Said H, El-Rayes K (2011) Optimizing material procurement and
storage on construction sites. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 137:421-431, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2359
7862.0000307
Thomas HR, Riley David R, Messner John I (2005) Fundamental
principles of site material management. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 131:808-815, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2005)131:7(808)
Zheng Daisy XM, Ng ST, Kumaraswamy Mohan M (2004) Applying a
genetic algorithm-based multiobjective approach for time-cost
optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
130:168-176, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:2(168)