Delay Analysis Method Using Delay Section

Youngjae Kim, A.M.ASCE1; Kyungrai Kim, A.M.ASCE2; and Dongwoo Shin3

Abstract: The most common cause of construction claims is delay. Moreover, delay claims are often extremely complex and difficult to
resolve. For this reason, the construction industry requires an effective and reliable method for analyzing the causes and effects of
construction delay. Presently, the methods of analysis in common use do not adequately account for several commonly encountered
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

situations. As a result, project time extensions are often considered without rigorous analysis. Therefore the objective of this study is to
propose and describe an effective and logical method for evaluating construction delays that adequately accounts for commonly encoun-
tered situations. To achieve this objective, the writers propose a new methodology called “delay analysis method using delay section”
共DAMUDS兲 as a means of overcoming two limitations of existing methods: 共1兲 inadequate accounting of concurrent delay and 共2兲
inadequate accounting of time-shortened activities. The DAMUDS method builds upon the widely used method of contemporaneous
period analysis. The writers’ points are illustrated through the use of an example case.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2005兲131:11共1155兲
CE Database subject headings: Delay time; Construction industry; Claims; Construction management.

Introduction When a schedule delay occurs, generally the as-planned and

The construction duration agreed between the owner and the con-
tractor is a crucial element in the contract between them. To en-
sure that the agreed construction duration is achieved, most con-
struction contracts require the contractor to submit a planned
schedule, which is then maintained and updated through the life
of the project. The contractor’s actual progress is normally mea-
sured against this as-planned schedule.
The as-planned schedule is typically prepared by the contrac-
tor, based on the contractor’s experience and knowledge. As work
progresses, the as-planned schedule may be subject to revision to
take into account unexpected events. These may include changes,
additional work, unusually adverse weather, changed or unex-
pected conditions discovered at the site, and so on. All events that
create delay and thus require adjustment to the as-planned sched-
ule must be accounted for and allocated between the owner and
the contractor. Most construction contracts include provisions de-
scribing how the risk of various types of delay is to be allocated
between the owner and the contractor. Nevertheless, most con-
struction contracts do not specify a method for evaluating the
delays or for precisely determining their allocation between the
owner and the contractor.
1
Senior Engineer, Incheon International Airport Railroad Co., Seoul,
South Korea 110-793. E-mail: yj109@irex.or.kr
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Architecture, Ajou Univ., Suwon,
South Korea 442-749 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
kyungrai@ajou.ac.kr
3
Professor, Dept. of Architecture, Ajou Univ., Suwon, South Korea
442-749. E-mail: dshin@ajou.ac.kr
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on October 31, 2003; approved on April 29, 2005. This paper
is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 131, No. 11, November 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2005/11-
1155–1164/$25.00.
as-built schedules are the basic data source for delay analysis
共Bubshait and Cunningham 1998兲. Through a detailed compari-
son of the as-planned schedule and the as-built schedule, an ana-
lyst can, using one of several methods, calculate the contributions
to the total construction duration of each of the identified delays
共Kartam 1999兲. The delay duration can be apportioned to the
participants according to the computed results.
This study presents a new schedule delay analysis meth-
odology, contrasting it with current methodologies, pointing out
the limitations of current methodologies and describing how the
writers’ proposed methodology, delay analysis method using
delay section 共DAMUDS兲, overcomes these limitations, using
example cases.
Existing Methods of Delay Analysis
The critical path method 共CPM兲 is widely used to analyze the
effects of schedule delay 共Bordoli and Baldwin 1998兲. Com-
monly, delay analysis is performed by comparing the as-planned
schedule and the as-built schedule 共Kraiem and Diekmann 1987;
Shi and Arditi 2001兲. This study investigated three currently ac-
cepted delay analysis methods. These are the “what-if” method,
the “but-for” method, and the contemporaneous period analysis
共CPA兲 method. These differ in the baseline schedule against
which delay effects are measured.
The what-if method adopts the anticipated or as-planned
schedule as its baseline. First, delay attributable to one side is
added to the as-planned schedule and the impact on project dura-
tion due to those delays is determined. This process is repeated
for the delays attributable to the other side. Finally, the amount
of delay in total project duration attributable to each side is de-
termined 共Schumacher 1995兲. This method has the advantage
of simplicity and clarity. However, it has the disadvantage that
it cannot reflect actual project progress, or any changes that
may have occurred in project planning and execution during con-

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 1155

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.

 struction, because it uses only the as-planned schedule as the
baseline schedule for delay analysis. It has the further disadvan-
tage that the amount of delay attributable to one side or the other
may be difficult to determine accurately when the delays are even
partially concurrent, since the effect of concurrent delay is not
considered.
The but-for method adopts the as-built schedule as its baseline.
This method overcomes the inadequacy of the what-if method for
dealing with changes in project planning and execution during
construction. The but-for method subtracts the delay attributable
to the owner from the as-built schedule. The compensable delay is
the difference in duration between the as-built schedule and the
but-for schedule 共Schumacher 1995兲. This method is simple and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

user friendly for analysis, but activities on the as-built schedule

often do not maintain the network logic of the as-planned sched-
ule because the as-built schedule reflects the actual record of con-
struction as affected by changing project circumstances. Further-
more, a but-for analysis based on subtracting delay attributable to
the contractor from the as-built schedule will nearly always result
in an incompatible result. Just as with the what-if method, this
results from failure to adequately account for concurrent delay.
The CPA method breaks the construction period into discrete
time increments and examines the effects of the delays attribut-
able to each of the project participants as the delays occur. This
method effectively characterizes and quantifies delays on con-
struction projects. It adopts the as-planned schedule as its base-
line, but the as-planned schedule is periodically updated at the
end of each planned time increment, and the updated schedule
becomes the baseline for the ensuring time increment. This pro-
cess of periodic schedule updating is continued through to project
completion 共Schumacher 1995兲. Courts have generally accepted
this method of schedule delay analysis because the method can
concretely express project delay as compensable delay, nonexcus-
able delay, and excusable noncompensable delay 共Stumpf 2000兲.
Nevertheless, some analytic ambiguity remains with the CPA
method with respect to concurrent delay. This ambiguity results
from the difficulty of selecting meaningful time increments that
correspond well with actual delay periods, and the analyst’s sub-
jectivity in selecting the increments. Additionally, the CPA
method has no mechanism for taking into account time-shortened
activities that reduce the total project duration.
Problem Statement
In the foregoing discussion, we have identified two inadequacies
in existing methods of schedule delay analysis: 共a兲 ambiguity in
the analysis of concurrent delay and 共b兲 inadequate consideration
of time-shortened activities.
Ambiguity in Concurrent Delay Analysis
Concurrent delay is defined as two delays that occur at the same
time 共Trauner 1990兲. Concurrent delay analysis is a very complex
and difficult aspect of schedule delay analysis. Some concurrent
delays, starting at the same time and finishing at the same time,
are relatively easy to analyze. Most delays, however, have differ-
ent start and finish dates. In such cases, the analyst must consider
many factors relating to each delay in order to calculate each
delay’s contribution to the total project duration. These factors,
including the relation of the specific delay to the project critical
Fig. 1. As-planned and as-built schedules
path, total float times of succeeding activities affected by the
delay, the overlapping of delays, and the selection of delay analy-
sis increments must all be taken into account.
Of the existing delay analysis methods, only the CPA method
includes a concept of concurrent delay. By applying the CPA
method, an analyst can compute the effects of some concurrent
delays that are all on the critical path or have the same float time.
However, there is an ambiguity in precisely calculating each de-
lay’s contribution to the total project duration because not all the
conditions stated above are properly considered in the CPA
method.
Fig. 1 is a case example concretely demonstrating the ambigu-
ity of concurrent delay analysis in the CPA method. The total
duration of the as-planned schedule is 5 weeks. This case consists
of five activities—A, B, C, D, and E—with only Activity A hav-
ing a 2-week total float 共TF兲. The as-built schedule shows total
project duration is increased by 1-week over the as-planned
schedule. There is a 4-week Delay 1 on Activity A, and a 1-week
Delay 2 on Activity D. This case contains a concurrent delay.
Delay 1 is a contractor-caused delay, and Delay 2 is an owner-
caused delay. The concurrent delay of this case is complicated
because the start and finish points of the two delays are different.
Delay 1 affects Activity A, of which the TF has a 共⫹兲 value, and
is finished later than Delay 2, and Delay 2 affects Activity D, of
which the TF has zero value, and is finished earlier. This situation
shows an ambiguity in concurrent delay analysis. If an analyst
adopts the CPA method as the only method of treating the con-
current delay, he might set up Week 4 as the first delay analysis
time increment, and perform the procedure to update the record of
actual progress until Week 4, to reschedule the update, and to
apportion the impact of the delay. However, the CPA method does

1156 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Definition of the delay section
not have precise criteria for the delay analysis time increments,
and cannot explain the respective effects of the two delays in this
complicated situation. An improved method is needed to resolve
this ambiguity in concurrent delay analysis.
Inadequate Consideration of Time-Shortened Activities
A basic premise of schedule delay analysis is that delay is mea-
sured from the project’s completion date rather than from any
interim activity date 共Bramble and Callahan 2002兲. There are
three kinds of activity in an as-built schedule. One is the delayed
activity, another is the actual duration activity as indicated in the
plan, and the other is the actual time-shortened activity. Most
existing delay analysis methods focus on the delayed activities
only. However, there is no analysis method for actual time-
shortened activities that reduce the total project duration, such as
Activity A shown in Fig. 1.
Concept for Settlement of the Problems
To overcome two shortcomings of the existing methods, which
are the ambiguity of concurrent delay analysis and inadequate
consideration for time-shortened activities, two core concepts
are suggested here: 共1兲 delay section 共DS兲 and 共2兲 contractor’s
float 共CF兲.
Delay Section
This study defines the new concept, DS, in order to settle the
problem of analyzing concurrent delay. The concept of DS is a
discrete and meaningful delay analysis time increment for divid-
ing the delay-occurred duration into a single delay-occurred pe-
riod 共not overlapped兲 and two or more delays-occurred periods
共overlapped兲. Fig. 2 shows the DS concept for analyzing the delay
in a typical project.
As shown in Fig. 2, the total project duration consists of the
period with delay and the period with general working activities.
The period with general working activities contains only working
activity or activities without delay 共a, c, and z兲. The period with
delay is divided into two using the DS concept. One is a DS
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 1157
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.
containing a single portion of delay or a single delay 共b, d, f, h,
and y兲, and the other is a DS containing two or more portions
of delays 共e and g兲. Using the DS concept, the concurrent delay
period is divided into a single delay-occurred section and two
or more delays-occurred sections, so that the issue of the analyst’s
subjectivity in selecting the time increments could be resolved.
In addition, the DS concept performs an important function in
analyzing and apportioning the concurrent delays because the
impact of each DS to the total project duration is explicitly
differentiated.
Contractor’s Float
The CPA uses the delays and the actual activities of the project.
Performing the actual schedule delay analysis, analysts must
consider the effects of time-shortened activities on the total
project duration as well as the contributions of the delays. How-
ever, the existing delay analysis methods cannot account for time-
shortened activities. This study defines another new concept, CF,
in order to solve the problem of handling time-shortened activities
contributing to reduction of total project duration. The contract
duration agreed on by the owner and the contractor is a very
important consideration in construction projects. That is, the con-
tract duration is a time given to a contractor to complete a project,
so that it is natural that a total project duration shortened because
of the contractor’s efforts could be utilized for the contractor’s
additional total float. In delay analysis, when the total project
duration is reduced by time-shortened activities, the CF concept
is applied until delay analysis is completed.
Delay Analysis Method Using Delay Section
DAMUDS is developed on the basis of the DS and CF concepts.
The procedures of DAMUDS are as follows. Using the DS, the
analysis is divided into three parts: 共1兲 a part containing only
working activities without delay; 共2兲 a DS containing a single
portion of delay or a single delay; and 共3兲 a DS containing two or
more portions of delays. Variables in DAMUDS are defined in
“Notation.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Delay section containing one Dij

Part Containing Only Working Activities Without Delay
First, update a baseline schedule by inputting the actual activities.
Second, reschedule the updated schedule. Finally, analyze the re-
sults after rescheduling. There is no possibility that the total du-
ration is increased because this part has no delay. However, there
is one possibility that the total duration is reduced after resched-
uling. In this case, the shortened time is added to the CF.
Delay Section Containing a Single Portion of Delay
or a Single Delay
A DS containing a single portion of delay or a single delay is
illustrated in Fig. 3. First, update the baseline schedule based on
the data date, which is the finish point of the Di1, by inputting the
actual activities and the occurred Di1 contained in the DSi. Sec-
ond, examine the variables needed in the analysis as stated in

Fig. 4. Delay section containing two or more Dij’s

1158 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.

 Table 1. Apportioning Delays to Project Participants
Impact of total project duration
after updating and rescheduling

Analysis part Increase No change Decrease

Part without delay N/A Not apportioning CF
Part containing a Owner’s responsibility Charged to the owner Same as above CF
single Dij in the DSi as compensable delay
Contractor’s responsibility Charged to the contractor Same as above CF
as nonexcusable delay
Part containing two or Only owner’s responsibility Charged to the owner as Same as above CF
more Dij’s in the DSi compensable delay
Only contractor’s responsibility Charged to the contractor Same as above CF
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as nonexcusable delay
Responsibility of both Charged to both as Same as above CF
excusable noncompensable delay
Note: CF⫽contractor’s float.

Notation. Third, reschedule the updated schedule. Finally, analyze
the results after rescheduling. The rescheduling results are ana-
lyzed as follows.
共1兲 If TDSi 艋 TFDi1 Regardless of who is responsible for Di1, the
analysis method is the same as that of the part containing
only working activities without delay.
共2兲 If TDSi ⬎ TFDi1
If the total project duration is increased after rescheduling, the
participant who has offered a cause for the Di1 takes the respon-
sibility for the increased time. If the owner caused Di1, the in-
creased time would be considered to be charged to the owner as
an excusable compensable delay. If the contractor caused Di1,
it would be charged to the contractor as a nonexcusable delay. If
the total project duration is decreased after rescheduling, the
analysis method for this case is the same as for the case where the
total project duration is decreased after rescheduling in the part
without delay.
owner and the contractor as excusable noncompensable delay;
and
• Where total project duration is decreased after rescheduling:
the analysis method for this case is the same as that for the
case where the total project duration is decreased after sched-
uling in a part without delay.
The summary matrix for apportioning delays is presented in
Table 1. This table shows the apportioning method for each analy-
sis part according to the change of total project duration.
Case Example
To demonstrate the usefulness of DAMUDS, as proposed above,
in comparison with the CPA method, a case example as shown in
Fig. 1 is applied.

Delay Section Containing Two or More Portions

of Delays
A DS containing two or more portions of delays is illustrated in
Fig. 4. The analysis of this part is almost the same as that of the
DS containing a single portion of delay or a single delay. The
additional consideration of variable Qi is needed in this analysis.
Analysis for the rescheduling results of this part is performed on
the basis of the Qi value. The detailed analysis is as follows.
共1兲 If Qi = 0; no Dij to meet the condition of TFDij ⬍ TDSi, no
impact on the total project duration. Regardless of all Dijs’
responsibilities, the analysis method is the same as that for a
part containing only working activities without delay.
共2兲 If Qi = 1; only one Dij to meet the condition of TFDij ⬎ TDSi,
impact on the total project duration. The analysis method for
this case is the same as that for the case where TDSi ⬍ TFDij in
a DS containing a single portion of delay or a single delay.
共3兲 If Qi = 2; the two or more Dij’s to meet the condition of
TFDij ⬍ TDSi, impact on the total project duration.
If one of the project participants caused all Dij, all owner’s or
all contractor’s Dij, the analysis method for this case is the same
as that for the case of a DS containing a single portion of delay or
a single delay. In cases where both the owner and the contractor
caused all Dij’s,
• Where total project duration is increased after rescheduling: Fig. 5. Time increment definition—Contemporaneous period
the increased time is considered to be charged to both the analysis method

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 1159

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Schedule after updating time increment 1

Fig. 7. Schedule after updating time increment 2

Application of the Contemporaneous Period Analysis
Method
As shown in Fig. 5, the CPA method divides the total pro-
ject duration of the as-built schedule into analysis time increments
and analyzes the effects of each increment. Delay 1 on Activity A
and Delay 2 on Activity D constitute concurrent delay. Delay 1
starts at Week 1 and finishes at Week 4. Delay 2 only happened at
Week 2. They overlap at Week 2. Therefore, based on the last
finish point of the concurrent delay, the total project duration is
divided into time increment 1, which is from Week 1 to Week 4,
and time increment 2, which is from Week 5 to Week 6. The
baseline schedule used in the CPA method is the as-planned
schedule.
During time increment 1, Delay 1 is first updated into the
as-planned schedule because Delay 1 starts earlier than Delay 2.
After Delay 1 is updated, the total project duration is increased by
2 weeks, from 5 to 7 weeks, as shown in Fig. 6. Next, Delay 2 is
updated. However, there is no impact on the total project duration
because Delay 2 has 1 week of total float from the previous up-
date. Therefore, 2 weeks, the extension of the total project dura-
tion, is charged as nonexcusable delay because Delay 1 is a
contractor-caused delay.
During time increment 2, Activity A, which is time-shortened
from 2 to 1 week, is first updated with the updated schedule of
time increment 1. After the update of Activity A, the total project
duration is reduced by 1 week, from 7 to 6 weeks as shown in
Fig. 7. Next, Activity B and Activity E are updated, but there is no
impact on the shortened total project duration. Even though the
total project duration is reduced by 1 week because of the time-
shortened activity, Activity A, there is no method in CPA for
analyzing the result. Therefore an ambiguity in delay analysis
exists in the CPA method.
The updated results by each time increment are summarized
and shown in Table 2.
Application of the Delay Analysis Method Using
Delay Section
Fig. 8 is a selection of multiple time increments to establish DSs.
The arrangement of occurred delays in the total project period
makes it possible that the delay-occurred duration can be divided
into a single delay-occurred period and two or more delay-
occurred periods.
Using the DS concept, the determined time increments of this
case example are as follows:
Time increment 1: DS1 共week 1兲;
Time increment 2: DS2 共week 2兲;
Time increment 3: DS3 共week 3–week 4兲; and
Time increment 4: the date after the DS3—the actual finish
date of the project 共week 5–week 6兲.
Compute each increment’s contribution to the total project du-
ration in the determined part order. According to the computation
result of each part, apportion the changed total project duration to

Table 2. Final Results of the Application of the Contemporaneous Period Analysis Method
Apportioning schedule impact
Analysis Slip
time Data Project during Excusable Excusable
increment date completion period Nonexcusable noncompensable compensable Notes
0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Planned
1 4 7 ↑2 2 0 0 Concurrent delay
2 6 6 ↓1 0 0 0 No method for
duration-shortened
activity
Total 6 ↓1 2 0 0 Ambiguity

1160 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Schedule after updating time increment 1

D22: the first portion of Delay 2 共the first portion of D2 in the

DS2兲;
Fig. 8. Time increment definition—Delay analysis method using TFDi: min兵TF values of Di’s successors其;
delay section TFD21 = 1; Activity A’s TF 共refer to Fig. 9兲;
TFD22 = 0; Activity D’s TF 共refer to Fig. 9兲;
In case of D21; TFD21 共1 week兲 = TDS2 共1 week兲;
In case of D22; TFD22 共zero兲 ⬍ TDS2 共1 week兲;
the owner and the contractor. The variables TDSi, Dij, TFDij, and Q2: the count of Dij, of which the TFDij ⬍ TDS2;
Qi of each part could be used in the procedure of delay analysis. Therefore Q2 = 1.
Time increment 1 is a DS containing a single portion of delay. There have been owner-caused and contractor-caused delays;
This step should observe the rule of a DS containing a single that is, this part is the real concurrent delay period. Through
portion of delay or a single delay. The as-planned schedule is used examining the various variables, the calculated value of Q2 in this
for the baseline schedule in DAMUDS. By inputting the actual increment is 1. There are both the owner-caused D21 and the
activities and the delay of time increment 1 into the baseline, contractor-caused D22, but only TDS2 of D22 is greater than each
update the baseline. In order to apportion occurred delays in the TFDij. After determining who is responsible for the impact of
total project concretely and objectively, it is necessary to examine
this increment, reschedule. The second updating and rescheduling
the following variables first. The following variables are needed
makes an updated schedule as shown in Fig. 10. Because of
in order to determine who is responsible for the impact of this
increment on the total project duration.
TDS1: 1 week;
D11: the first portion of Delay 1 共the first portion of D1 in the
DS1兲; and
TFD11: min兵TF of D11’s successor其 =2; Activity A’s TF 共see
Fig. 1兲.
There has been only contractor-caused delay. Comparing the
value of TDS1 共1 week兲 with that of TFD11 共2 weeks兲, the value of
TDS1 is less than that of TFD11. The impact of this increment has
not directly contributed to the total project duration. After deter-
mining who is responsible for the impact of this increment, the
first updating and rescheduling makes a new baseline schedule as
shown in Fig. 9. There is no impact on the total project duration,
as shown in Fig. 9. The overall project duration is still 6 weeks.
Time increment 2 is a DS containing two portions of delays as
shown in Fig. 8. This step should observe the rule of a DS con-
taining two or more portions of delays. Update the delays of time
increment 2 to the updated schedule in Fig. 9. The following
variables are needed to determine who is responsible for the im-
pact of this increment on the total project duration.
TDS2: 1 week;
D21: the second portion of Delay 1 共the second portion of D1 in
the DS2兲; Fig. 10. Schedule after updating time increment 2

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 1161

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Schedule after updating time increment 3

Delay 2 in Activity D, the overall project duration is increased by
1 week, from 5 weeks to 6 weeks. Therefore 1 week is charged to
the owner as excusable-compensable delay.
Time increment 3 is a DS containing one portion of delay as
shown in Fig. 8. Time increment 3 involves the same procedure as
time increment 1 because it has the same DS category. Update the
actual activities and delay of time increment 3 into the updated
schedule in Fig. 10. The following variables are needed to deter-
mine who is responsible for the impact of this increment on the
total project duration.
TDS3: 2 weeks;
D31: the last portion of Delay 1 共the last portion of D1 in the
DS3兲;
TFD31: min兵TF of D31’s successor其 =1; Activity A’s TF 共refer to
Fig. 10兲.
There has been only contractor-caused delay. Comparing the
value of TDS3 共2 weeks兲 with that of TFD31 共1 week兲, the value of
TDS3 is greater than that of TFD31. Therefore the total project du-
ration is increased when the schedule is updated, and the delay
would be charged as nonexcusable delay. After determining who
Fig. 12. Schedule after updating time increment 4
is responsible for the impact of this increment, reschedule. The
third updating and rescheduling produces an updated schedule as
shown in Fig. 11. Because of Delay 1 in Activity A, the overall
project duration is increased by 1 week, from 6 to 7 weeks. There-
fore 1 week is charged to the contractor as nonexcusable delay.
Time increment 4 contains only working activity as shown in
Fig. 8. This step should observe the analysis rule of a part con-
taining only working activities without DS. Update the actual
activities of time increment 4 into the updated schedule in Fig. 11.
The final fourth updating and rescheduling makes the as-built
schedule as shown in Fig. 12. However, time increment 4 has an
activity time-shortened by 1 week, Activity A. The overall project
duration is reduced by 1 week, from 7 to 6 weeks because of
Activity A. The shortened time is the CF.
According to the final result of the delay analysis, the appor-
tionment for delays is summarized. Table 3 shows the final results
of the application of DAMUDS. The DS concept is defined to

Table 3. Final Results of the Application of Delay Analysis Method Using Delay Section
Decision of delay responsibility Apportioning schedule change

Response Slip
Part Data for Project during Excusable Excusable
number date DSi Dij TDSi TPDij Qi Dij completion period Nonexcusable noncompensable compensable CF Notes
0 0 — — — — — — 5 — — — — — Planned
1 1 DS1 D11: contractor 1 2 0 — 5 — 0 0 0 0 Delay 1
delay
2 2 DS2 D21: contractor 1 1 1 — 6 ↑1 0 0 1 0 Delay 1
delay
D22: owner 1 0 Owner
delay
3 4 DS3 D31: contractor 2 1 1 Contractor 7 ↑1 1 0 0 0 Delay 1
delay
4 6 — — — — — — 6 ↓1 0 0 0 1 Activity A
duration
decrease
Total 6 ↑1 1 0 1 1
Note: CF⫽contractor’s float.

1162 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.

 Table 4. Comparative Table of Application Results
Nonexcusable
Method 共contractor-caused兲
Contemporaneous period analysis 2 0
Delay analysis method using delay section 0 0
共contractor’s− CF = 0兲
Note: CF⫽contractor’s float.
analyze each time increment’s contribution to the total project
duration. There is an increase of 1 week by the owner, an increase
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of 1 week by the contractor, and a decrease of 1 week by the
time-shortened activity. Such analysis results make it possible to
apportion the delays to project participants objectively. First, the
increase of 1 week by the owner is charged as excusable com-
pensable delay. Second, the increase of 1 week by the contractor
and the decrease of 1 week 共CF兲 due to the time-shortened activ-
ity are offset. Therefore there is no nonexcusable delay charged to
the contractor.
Difference between the Contemporaneous Period
Analysis and Delay Analysis Method Using Delay
Section
The same case example is analyzed using the CPA and DAMUDS
methods. The results are summarized in Table 4. As shown in
Table 4, the results of the application of CPA and DAMUDS are
quite different. The main reason for this difference is in the analy-
sis methods of concurrent delay and time-shortened activity.
First, the difference is caused by application of Delay 2 in each
method. In the CPA method, after Delay 1 is first updated, total
project duration is increased by 2 weeks. Afterwards, Delay 2 has
1 week of total float added, from the first update. Therefore there
is no impact on the total project duration after Delay 2 is updated.
However, in the DAMUDS method, the concurrent delay is di-
vided into a single delay analysis part and two or more delay
analysis parts using DS. Delay 2 is included in the time increment
2, which is the DS of 2 or more delay analysis periods. In time
increment 2, the second portion of Delay 1 is first updated. But
there is no impact on the total project duration after the updating.
Then, Delay 2, which is on the critical path, is updated, and the
total project duration is increased by 1 week after the updating.
Therefore the DAMUDS method could identify actual impact of
Delay 2 on the total project duration. The impact of Delay 2,
which increases total project duration by 1 week, is an excusable
and compensable delay.
Second, the difference is caused by the inclusion of time-
shortened activity, Activity A, in each method. Even though the
total project duration is reduced by 1 week because of Activity A,
there is no method in CPA to analyze the result. However, in
DAMUDS, Activity A is considered as CF and managed until
delay analysis is completed. The shortened time, 1 week, can
used for the contractor’s additional float. Therefore, the nonexcus-
able delay, 1 week caused by the contractor, is finally offset by
the 1 week of the CF.
As a result of the case example, the DAMUDS method is
evaluated as a more effective delay analysis method than the CPA
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 1163
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.
Excusable Excusable
noncompensable compensable
共third party-caused兲 共owner-caused兲 Notes
0
1 Contractor’s= 1
CF = 1
method, and provides more specific results in analyzing and ap-
portioning schedule delays, especially in the analysis of concur-
rent delay and time-shortened activity.
Conclusions
This paper has presented a method 共DAMUDS兲 for analyzing and
apportioning responsibility for schedule delays.
Two inadequacies in current methods have been identified.
One inadequacy is ambiguity in the analysis of concurrent delay.
The other is the inadequate consideration of time-shortened ac-
tivities. DAMUDS incorporates two new concepts for correcting
these inadequacies: the DS and the CF. DAMUDS consists of
multiple procedures as follows. The first step is a division of the
total delayed project duration into multiple time increments of
DSs, the second step is to analyze and evaluate the time incre-
ment, and the last step is to iterate this analysis for each time
increment in turn in three steps: updating the baseline schedule,
rescheduling the updated baseline schedule, and apportioning re-
sponsibility for the changed total project duration. This paper ap-
plied DAMUDS to an example case.
The DAMUDS method presented in this paper is based on
CPM and CPA methods. As a result, it requires examination and
evaluation of the as-planned schedule and actual activities, much
updating, and consideration of changed activities’ contributions to
total project duration. Such analysis requires much effort and
time. Nevertheless, it may prove an effective and valuable tool for
delay analysis of construction projects because it overcomes in-
adequacies in present methods.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
CF ⫽ contractor’s additional float, which is obtained as a
result of shortened total project duration by
contractors;
Dij ⫽ D j in the DSi;
D j ⫽ jth delay in the project, 1 艋 j 艋 m;
DSi ⫽ ith DS defined by using the DS concept, 1 艋 i 艋 n;
m ⫽ count of delays in the project;
n ⫽ count of DS’s in the project;
Qi ⫽ count of Dij’s, to meet the condition of TFDij ⬍ TDSi;
the count of Dij’s, which could increase the total
project duration;
TDSi ⫽ duration of DSi; and
TFDij ⫽ min 兵total floats of Dij’s successors其; the minimum
value out of all total float values of Dij’s successors.
 References
Bordoli, D. W., and Baldwin, A. N. 共1998兲. “A methodology for asses-
sing construction project delays.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 16共5兲,
327–337.
Bramble, B. B., and Callahan, M. T. 共2002兲. “Using the schedule to prove
delay and disruptions.” Construction delay claims, Aspen Law &
Business, New York, 11–45.
Bubshait, A. A., and Cunningham, M. J. 共1998兲. “Comparison of delay
analysis methodologies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125共4兲, 315–322.
Kartam, S. 共1999兲. “Generic methodology for analyzing delay claims.” J.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Constr. Eng. Manage., 125共6兲, 409–419.
Kraiem, Z. I., and Diekmann, J. R. 共1987兲. “Concurrent delays in con-
struction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 113共4兲, 591–602.
Schumacher, L. 共1995兲. “Quantifying and apportioning delay on con-
struction projects.” Cost Eng., 37共2兲, 11–13.
Shi, J., and Arditi, D. 共2001兲. “Construction delay computation method.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127共1兲, 60–65.
Stumpf, G. R. 共2000兲. “Schedule delay analysis.” Cost Eng., 42共7兲,
32–43.
Trauner, T. J. 共1990兲. “Types of construction delays.” Construction
delays, R. S. Means, Kingston, Mass., 8.

1164 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2005.131:1155-1164.