Abstract
Implementation of projects with an acceptable quality level in the minimum cost and time has always been the ultimate goal of managers and decision-makers in the construction industry. On the other hand, the construction industry is responsible for creating various environmental problems. Therefore, reducing the environmental destructive effects of project implementation is of utmost importance. The aim of this paper is to consider the environmental pollution along with the project iron triangle of cost, time, and quality in the scheduling of the construction projects. A multi-objective multi-mode resource-constraint project scheduling model is presented considering the generalized precedence constraints between project activities as well as the limitation of renewable resources and non-renewable resources. In this study, the environmental effects of construction projects as well as the three conflicting goals of cost (budget), time (duration), and quality are taken into account. Also, the limitations of renewable and non-renewable resources as well as the generalized activity precedence relationships are incorporated into the proposed model. The proposed model was implemented on a rural water supply project including 25 activities and was solved using the fuzzy goal programming approach with GAMS software. Different combinations of activity modes were presented along with the start time of each activity considering four objective functions. The results showed that this project would be completed in 190 days, at the cost of $15,394, with the quality level of 0.835, and environmental effects of 0.372, which are between the optimal and worst objective functions values. In addition, the sensitivity analysis indicates the high efficiency of the proposed model and its capability in assisting project managers and planners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahadian, B., Veisy, O., & Azizi, V. (2016). A multi-objective stochastic programming approach for project time, cost and quality trade-off problem (TCQTP). Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 10(4), 553–564.
Aminbakhsh, S., & Sonmez, R. (2016). Discrete particle swarm optimization method for the large-scale discrete time–cost trade-off problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 51, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.12.041
Aouam, T., & Vanhoucke, M. (2019). An agency perspective for multi-mode project scheduling with time/cost trade-offs. Computers and Operations Research, 105, 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2019.01.012
Askarifard, M., Abbasianjahromi, H., Sepehri, M., & Zeighami, E. (2021). A robust multi-objective optimization model for project scheduling considering risk and sustainable development criteria. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(1–4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01123-z
Atanda, J. O., & Öztürk, A. (2020). Social criteria of sustainable development in relation to green building assessment tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0184-1
Azam, M. (2016). Does environmental degradation shackle economic growth? A panel data investigation on 11 Asian countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.087
Azam, M. (2019). Relationship between energy, investment, human capital, environment, and economic growth in four BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(33), 34388–34400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06533-9
Babu, A. J. G., & Suresh, N. (1996). Project management with time, cost, and quality considerations. European Journal of Operational Research, 88(2), 320–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)00202-9
Ballesteros-Perez, P., Elamrousy, K. M., & González-Cruz, M. C. (2019). Non-linear time-cost trade-off models of activity crashing: Application to construction scheduling and project compression with fast-tracking. Automation in Construction, 97, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.11.001
Berthaut, F., Pellerin, R., Perrier, N., & Hajji, A. (2014). Time-cost trade-offs in resource-constraint project scheduling problems with overlapping modes. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 6(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPOM.2014.065259
Blazewicz, J., Lenstra, J., & Rinnooy-Kan, A. (1983). Scheduling subject to resource constraints: Classification and complexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 5, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-218X(83)90012-4
Caldeira, C., Freire, F., Olivetti, E. A., Kirchain, R., & Dias, L. C. (2019). Analysis of cost-environmental trade-offs in biodiesel production incorporating waste feedstocks: A multi-objective programming approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.126
Chakrabortty, R. K., Rahman, H. F., & Ryan, M. J. (2020). Efficient priority rules for project scheduling under dynamic environments: A heuristic approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 140, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106287
Chen, X., Cheng, L., Deng, G., Guan, S., & Hu, L. (2021). Project duration-cost-quality prediction model based on Monte Carlo simulation. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1978, No. 1, p. 012048). IOP Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1978/1/012048
Chen, S. P., & Tsai, M. J. (2011). Time–cost trade-off analysis of project networks in fuzzy environments. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(2), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.02.002
Cheng, M. Y., & Tran, D. H. (2015). Opposition-based multiple-objective differential evolution to solve the time–cost–environment impact trade-off problem in construction projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 29(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000386
De Reyck, B., & Herroelen, W. (1999). The multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem with generalized precedence relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 119(2), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00151-4
Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2015). A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the environmental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 89, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.020
El-Rayes, K., & Kandil, A. (2005). Time-cost-quality trade-off analysis for highway construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(4), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:4(477)
EPA. (2009). Potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the construction sector. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Farrell, A., VanDeveer, S. D., & Jäger, J. (2001). Environmental assessments: Four under-appreciated elements of design. Global Environmental Change, 11(4), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00009-7
Feng, K., Lu, W., Chen, S., & Wang, Y. (2018). An integrated environment–cost–time optimisation method for construction contractors considering global warming. Sustainability, 10(11), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114207
Ghamginzadeh, A., & Najafi, A. A. (2013). Solving resource-constrained discrete time-cost trade-off problem by memetic algorithm. Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(19), 2466–2475.
Govindan, K., Darbari, J. D., Agarwal, V., & Jha, P. C. (2017). Fuzzy multi-objective approach for optimal selection of suppliers and transportation decisions in an eco-efficient closed loop supply chain network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 1598–1619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.180
Habibi, F., Barzinpour, F., & Sadjadi, S. (2018). Resource-constrained project scheduling problem: Review of past and recent developments. Journal of Project Management, 3(2), 55–88. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2018.1.005
Habibi, F., Barzinpour, F., & Sadjadi, S. J. (2019). A mathematical model for project scheduling and material ordering problem with sustainability considerations: A case study in Iran. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 128, 690–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.007
Hamta, N., Ehsanifar, M., & Sarikhani, J. (2021). Presenting a goal programming model in the time-cost-quality trade-off. International Journal of Construction Management, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1502930
Hartmann, S., & Briskorn, D. (2021). An updated survey of variants and extensions of the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.004
He, H., Tian, S., Tarroja, B., Ogunseitan, O. A., Samuelsen, S., & Schoenung, J. M. (2020). Flow battery production: Materials selection and environmental impact. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121740
Hong, T., Ji, C., Jang, M., & Park, H. (2014). Assessment model for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions during building construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000199
Hosseinzadeh, F., Paryzad, B., Pour, N. S., & Najafi, E. (2020). Fuzzy combinatorial optimization in four-dimensional tradeoff problem of cost-time-quality-risk in one dimension and in the second dimension of risk context in ambiguous mode. Engineering Computations., 37(6), 1967–1991. https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-03-2019-0094
Ilhan, B., & Yobas, B. (2019). Measuring construction for social, economic and environmental assessment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management., 26(5), 746–765. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0112
Iranmanesh, H., Skandari, M. R., & Allahverdiloo, M. (2008). Finding Pareto optimal front for the multi-mode time, cost quality trade-off in project scheduling. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 40, 346–350. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1074393
Kannimuthu, M., Raphael, B., Palaneeswaran, E., & Kuppuswamy, A. (2019). Optimizing time, cost and quality in multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling. Built Environment Project and Asset Management., 9(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-04-2018-0075
Ke, H., & Ma, J. (2014). Modeling project time–cost trade-off in fuzzy random environment. Applied Soft Computing, 19, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.040
Kerkhove, L. P., & Vanhoucke, M. (2020). Multi-mode schedule optimisation for incentivised projects. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 142, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106321
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
Kerzner, H. (2019). Using the project management maturity model: Strategic planning for project management (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Khang, D. B., & Myint, Y. M. (1999). Time, cost and quality trade-off in project management: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00043-X
Khosravani Moghadam, E., Sharifi, M., Rafiee, S., & Chang, Y. K. (2020). Time–cost–quality trade-off in a broiler production project using meta-heuristic algorithms: A case study. Agriculture, 10(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10010003
Kim, J., Kang, C., & Hwang, I. (2012). A practical approach to project scheduling: Considering the potential quality loss cost in the time–cost tradeoff problem. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.05.004
Leopold, L. B. (1971). A procedure for evaluating environmental impact (Vol. 28, No. 2). US Dept. of the Interior. doi:https://doi.org/10.3133/cir645
Liu, D., Li, H., Wang, H., Qi, C., & Rose, T. (2020). Discrete symbiotic organisms search method for solving large-scale time-cost trade-off problem in construction scheduling. Expert Systems with Applications, 148, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113230
Liu, S., Tao, R., & Tam, C. M. (2013). Optimizing cost and CO2 emission for construction projects using particle swarm optimization. Habitat International, 37, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.12.012
Lotfi, A., Dorra, A., Kaddour, B., & Abdessamad, K. (2014). Fuzzy goal programming to optimization the multi-objective problem. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 2(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjams.20140201.12
Lotfi, R., Mardani, N., & Weber, G. W. (2021). Robust bi-level programming for renewable energy location. International Journal of Energy Research, 45(5), 7521–7534. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6332
Lotfi, R., Mehrjerdi, Y. Z., Pishvaee, M. S., Sadeghieh, A., & Weber, G. W. (2021). A robust optimization model for sustainable and resilient closed-loop supply chain network design considering conditional value at risk. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 11(2), 221–253. https://doi.org/10.3934/naco.2020023
Lotfi, R., Yadegari, Z., Hosseini, S. H., Khameneh, A. H., Tirkolaee, E. B., & Weber, G. W. (2020). A robust time-cost-quality-energy-environment trade-off with resource-constrained in project management: A case study for a bridge construction project. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2020158
Luong, D. L., Tran, D. H., & Nguyen, P. T. (2021). Optimizing multi-mode time-cost-quality trade-off of construction project using opposition multiple objective difference evolution. International Journal of Construction Management, 21(3), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1526630
Mahdiraji, H. A., Sedigh, M., Hajiagha, S. H. R., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Jafari-Sadeghi, V., & Dana, L. P. (2021). A novel time, cost, quality and risk tradeoff model with a knowledge-based hesitant fuzzy information: An R&D project application. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121068
Mahmoudi, A., & Javed, S. A. (2020). Project scheduling by incorporating potential quality loss cost in time-cost tradeoff problems. Journal of Modelling in Management., 15(3), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-12-2018-0208
Marzouk, M., Madany, M., Abou-Zied, A., & El-said, M. (2008). Handling construction pollutions using multi-objective optimization. Construction Management and Economics, 26(10), 1113–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802400779
Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. M. (Eds.). (2006). Global environmental assessments: information and influence. MIT Press, New York. doi:https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3292.001.0001
Mohammadipour, F., & Sadjadi, S. J. (2016). Project cost-quality-risk tradeoff analysis in a time-constrained problem. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 95, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.02.025
Montarroyos, D. C. G., de Alvarez, C. E., & Bragança, L. (2019). Assessing the environmental impacts of construction in Antarctica. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 79, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106302
Mungle, S., Benyoucef, L., Son, Y. J., & Tiwari, M. K. (2013). A fuzzy clustering-based genetic algorithm approach for time–cost–quality trade-off problems: A case study of highway construction project. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(8), 1953–1966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2013.05.006
Nabipoor Afruzi, E., Najafi, A. A., Roghanian, E., & Mazinani, M. (2014). A multi-objective imperialist competitive algorithm for solving discrete time, cost and quality trade-off problems with mode-identify and resource-constrained situations. Computers and Operations Research, 50, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.04.003
Nguyen, D. T., Le-Hoai, L., Tarigan, P. B., & Tran, D. H. (2021). Tradeoff time cost quality in repetitive construction project using fuzzy logic approach and symbiotic organism search algorithm. Alexandria Engineering Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.06.058
Ozcan-Deniz, G., & Zhu, Y. (2017). Multi-objective optimization of greenhouse gas emissions in highway construction projects. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.009
Ozcan-Deniz, G., Zhu, Y., & Ceron, V. (2012). Time, cost, and environmental impact analysis on construction operation optimization using genetic algorithms. Journal of Management in Engineering, 28(3), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.009
Peche, R., & Rodríguez, E. (2009). Environmental impact assessment procedure: A new approach based on fuzzy logic. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(5), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.005
Perlingeiro, R. M., Perlingeiro, M. S. P. L., & Soares, C. A. P. (2021). Criteria for the assessment of sustainability of public constructions. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 15450–15493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01306-2
Razavi Hajiagha, S. H., Mahdiraji, H. A., Behnam, M., Nekoughadirli, B., & Joshi, R. (2021). A scenario-based robust time–cost tradeoff model to handle the effect of COVID-19 on supply chains project management. Operations Management Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00195-y
Razavi Hajiagha, S. H., Mahdiraji, H. A., & Hashemi, S. S. (2014). A hybrid model of fuzzy goal programming and grey numbers in continuous project time, cost, and quality tradeoff. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 71(1–4), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5463-2
Rubin, P. A., & Narasimhan, R. (1984). Fuzzy goal programming with nested priorities. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 14(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(84)90095-2
Sharma, K., & Trivedi, M. K. (2022). AHP and NSGA-II-based time–cost–quality trade-off optimization model for construction projects. In Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Computing (pp. 45–63). Springer, Singapore. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1220-6_5
Shirzadeh Chaleshtarti, A., Shadrokh, S., Khakifirooz, M., Fathi, M., & Pardalos, P. M. (2020). A hybrid genetic and Lagrangian relaxation algorithm for resource-constrained project scheduling under nonrenewable resources. Applied Soft Computing, 94, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106482
Son, J., Hong, T., & Lee, S. (2013). A mixed (continuous+ discrete) time-cost trade-off model considering four different relationships with lag time. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(2), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-1506-3
Subulan, K. (2020). An interval-stochastic programming based approach for a fully uncertain multi-objective and multi-mode resource investment project scheduling problem with an application to ERP project implementation. Expert Systems with Applications, 149, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113189
Taheri Amiri, M. J., Haghighi, F. R., Eshtehardian, E., & Adessi, O. (2017). Optimization of time, cost and quality in critical chain method using simulated annealing. International Journal of Engineering, 30(5), 627–635.
Taheri Amiri, M. J., Haghighi, F. R., Eshtehardian, E., & Adessi, O. (2018). Multi-project time-cost optimization in critical chain with resource constraints. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(10), 3738–3752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-0691-x
Tareghian, H. R., & Taheri, S. H. (2006). On the discrete time, cost and quality trade-off problem. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 181(2), 1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2006.02.029
Tavana, M., Abtahi, A. R., & Khalili-Damghani, K. (2014). A new multi-objective multi-mode model for solving preemptive time–cost–quality trade-off project scheduling problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1830–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.08.081
Tran, D. H. (2020). Optimizing time–cost in generalized construction projects using multiple-objective social group optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9), 2287–2313. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2019-0412
Van Den Eeckhout, M., Maenhout, B., & Vanhoucke, M. (2019). A heuristic procedure to solve the project staffing problem with discrete time/resource trade-offs and personnel scheduling constraints. Computers and Operations Research, 101, 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.09.008
Wang, J., Wu, H., Tam, V. W., & Zuo, J. (2019). Considering life-cycle environmental impacts and society’s willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste management fee: An empirical study of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 1004–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1399110
Wang, W. (2021). The concept of sustainable construction project management in international practice. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01333-z
Wei, H., Su, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Preprocessing the discrete time-cost tradeoff problem with generalized precedence relations. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6312198
Xu, J., Zheng, H., Zeng, Z., Wu, S., & Shen, M. (2012). Discrete time–cost–environment trade-off problem for large-scale construction systems with multiple modes under fuzzy uncertainty and its application to Jinping-II Hydroelectric Project. International Journal of Project Management, 30(8), 950–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.019
Yusof, N. A., Abidin, N. Z., Zailani, S. H. M., Govindan, K., & Iranmanesh, M. (2016). Linking the environmental practice of construction firms and the environmental behaviour of practitioners in construction projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.090
Zaman, F., Elsayed, S., Sarker, R., & Essam, D. (2020). Hybrid evolutionary algorithm for large-scale project scheduling problems. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 146, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106567
Zhang, Z., & Zhong, X. (2018). Time/resource trade-off in the robust optimization of resource-constraint project scheduling problem under uncertainty. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 35(4), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2018.1451400
Zhu, L., Lin, J., & Wang, Z. J. (2019). A discrete oppositional multi-verse optimization algorithm for multi-skill resource constrained project scheduling problem. Applied Soft Computing, 85, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105805
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Project data
Appendix: Project data
N | Activity | Weight | Execution mode | Resources | Time | Cost | Quality | Environmental impacts | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cement | Skilled worker | Worker | Excavator | ||||||||
1 | Equipping the workshop | 0.011 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | $1000 | 0.80 | 0.30 |
2 | Staking and excavating the trench | 0.053 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 14 | $1260 | 0.78 | 0.36 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 10 | $1220 | 0.80 | 0.44 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 8 | $1376 | 0.83 | 0.64 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 7 | $1022 | 0.82 | 0.44 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 12 | $1464 | 0.84 | 0.52 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 10 | $1720 | 0.87 | 0.64 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 10 | $1460 | 0.88 | 0.48 | |||
3 | Stringing the pipes | 0.105 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 25 | $400 | 0.74 | 0.20 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 20 | $800 | 0.80 | 0.30 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 16 | $896 | 0.83 | 0.40 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 12 | $960 | 0.90 | 0.50 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 22 | $880 | 0.82 | 0.40 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 18 | $1,008 | 0.85 | 0.50 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 14 | $1,120 | 0.92 | 0.50 | |||
4 | Levelling and grading the trench bottom | 0.021 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5 | $160 | 0.77 | 0.27 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 4 | $224 | 0.80 | 0.40 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 3 | $240 | 0.83 | 0.47 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 2 | $208 | 0.86 | 0.53 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5 | $280 | 0.85 | 0.40 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 4 | $320 | 0.88 | 0.53 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 3 | $312 | 0.90 | 0.53 | |||
5 | Welding the pipes and lowering them into the trench | 0.016 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | $570 | 0.76 | 0.45 |
2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | $414 | 0.80 | 0.60 | |||
3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | $488 | 0.75 | 0.45 | |||
4 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | $308 | 0.85 | 0.60 | |||
5 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | $552 | 0.86 | 0.60 | |||
6 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | $610 | 0.82 | 0.45 | |||
7 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | $462 | 0.92 | 0.60 | |||
6 | Pipe laying and sieving operation | 0.105 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 22 | $704 | 0.78 | 0.30 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 20 | $800 | 0.80 | 0.40 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 17 | $816 | 0.81 | 0.50 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 15 | $840 | 0.82 | 0.60 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 22 | $880 | 0.82 | 0.40 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 19 | $912 | 0.83 | 0.60 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 17 | $952 | 0.84 | 0.60 | |||
7 | Testing | 0.037 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 | $88 | 0.82 | 0.40 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 | $112 | 0.80 | 0.50 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | $96 | 0.81 | 0.50 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | $64 | 0.84 | 0.60 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | $128 | 0.83 | 0.50 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | $120 | 0.83 | 0.60 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | $96 | 0.87 | 0.60 | |||
8 | Backfilling | 0.079 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 19 | $1216 | 0.82 | 0.30 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 15 | $1200 | 0.80 | 0.35 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 6 | $684 | 0.74 | 0.50 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 5 | $650 | 0.76 | 0.50 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 16 | $1,280 | 0.81 | 0.30 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 7 | $798 | 0.75 | 0.44 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 6 | $780 | 0.77 | 0.44 | |||
9 | Levelling and grading of the reservoir bottom | 0.032 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | $392 | 0.84 | 0.27 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6 | $588 | 0.80 | 0.55 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 3 | $240 | 0.85 | 0.33 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 3 | $516 | 0.87 | 0.65 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 7 | $686 | 0.83 | 0.60 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 4 | $320 | 0.88 | 0.33 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 4 | $688 | 0.90 | 0.64 | |||
10 | Excavating the route | 0.047 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 13 | $1170 | 0.78 | 0.36 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 9 | $1098 | 0.80 | 0.44 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 8 | $1376 | 0.85 | 0.64 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 7 | $1022 | 0.83 | 0.44 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 10 | $1220 | 0.82 | 0.52 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 9 | $1548 | 0.87 | 0.64 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 8 | $1168 | 0.85 | 0.48 | |||
11 | Excavating and digging the reservoir foundation | 0.032 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 8 | $192 | 0.82 | 0.20 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | $192 | 0.80 | 0.40 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | $160 | 0.78 | 0.33 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 2 | $96 | 0.76 | 0.47 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 7 | $224 | 0.83 | 0.33 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | $200 | 0.81 | 0.40 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | $144 | 0.79 | 0.47 | |||
12 | Lean concrete | 0.011 | 1 | 150 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | $80 | 0.88 | 0.35 |
2 | 170 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | $59 | 0.80 | 0.45 | |||
3 | 175 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | $60 | 0.80 | 0.45 | |||
4 | 175 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | $38 | 0.80 | 0.45 | |||
5 | 170 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | $89 | 0.90 | 0.45 | |||
6 | 175 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | $90 | 0.90 | 0.45 | |||
7 | 175 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | $76 | 0.89 | 0.45 | |||
13 | Supply, fabrication, and installation of rebar, and placing concrete at the bottom | 0.105 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 22 | $2288 | 0.79 | 0.33 |
2 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 20 | $2400 | 0.80 | 0.33 | |||
3 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 20 | $2400 | 0.89 | 0.40 | |||
4 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 17 | $2856 | 0.94 | 0.40 | |||
5 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 22 | $2640 | 0.82 | 0.33 | |||
6 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 22 | $2640 | 0.91 | 0.40 | |||
7 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 19 | $3192 | 0.96 | 0.40 | |||
14 | Shuttering and installation of rebar for walls and ceiling | 0.126 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 26 | $3536 | 0.76 | 0.40 |
2 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 24 | $3648 | 0.80 | 0.40 | |||
3 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 23 | $3496 | 0.78 | 0.47 | |||
4 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 22 | $3872 | 0.87 | 0.40 | |||
5 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 25 | $3800 | 0.81 | 0.40 | |||
6 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 24 | $3648 | 0.79 | 0.40 | |||
7 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 23 | $4048 | 0.88 | 0.40 | |||
15 | Walls and ceiling concrete placing | 0.026 | 1 | 310 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | $341 | 0.81 | 0.47 |
2 | 370 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5 | $308 | 0.80 | 0.53 | |||
3 | 375 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | $234 | 0.81 | 0.53 | |||
4 | 310 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 2 | $162 | 0.79 | 0.53 | |||
5 | 370 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | $370 | 0.84 | 0.53 | |||
6 | 375 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 4 | $312 | 0.85 | 0.53 | |||
7 | 310 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 3 | $242 | 0.83 | 0.47 | |||
16 | Excavation of manhole | 0.021 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | $192 | 0.82 | 0.20 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 4 | $224 | 0.80 | 0.20 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | $270 | 0.77 | 0.48 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 2 | $212 | 0.77 | 0.48 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5 | $280 | 0.85 | 0.20 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 | $360 | 0.82 | 0.48 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 3 | $318 | 0.82 | 0.48 | |||
17 | Brickwork of manhole | 0.016 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6 | $144 | 0.90 | 0.27 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | $144 | 0.80 | 0.27 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 2 | $128 | 0.80 | 0.27 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 1 | $72 | 0.76 | 0.33 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 4 | $192 | 0.86 | 0.27 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 3 | $192 | 0.86 | 0.27 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 2 | $144 | 0.82 | 0.33 | |||
18 | Pouring concrete slab | 0.016 | 1 | 310 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | $204 | 0.84 | 0.40 |
2 | 370 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | $161 | 0.80 | 0.45 | |||
3 | 375 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | $124 | 0.80 | 0.45 | |||
4 | 310 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | $130 | 0.83 | 0.45 | |||
5 | 370 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | $214 | 0.86 | 0.45 | |||
6 | 375 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | $186 | 0.86 | 0.45 | |||
7 | 310 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | $194 | 0.89 | 0.40 | |||
19 | Excavation of the site | 0.016 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | $160 | 0.83 | 0.20 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | $144 | 0.80 | 0.33 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 2 | $112 | 0.77 | 0.33 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 | $64 | 0.73 | 0.47 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 4 | $192 | 0.86 | 0.33 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 3 | $168 | 0.83 | 0.40 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 2 | $128 | 0.80 | 0.47 | |||
20 | Making the steel part | 0.016 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | $192 | 0.67 | 0.20 |
2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | $280 | 0.80 | 0.30 | |||
3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | $256 | 0.94 | 0.30 | |||
4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | $144 | 0.91 | 0.20 | |||
5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | $336 | 0.84 | 0.30 | |||
6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | $320 | 0.98 | 0.30 | |||
7 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | $192 | 0.95 | 0.20 | |||
21 | Shuttering and concrete placing | 0.016 | 1 | 310 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | $284 | 0.73 | 0.40 |
2 | 370 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | $278 | 0.80 | 0.45 | |||
3 | 375 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | $280 | 0.80 | 0.45 | |||
4 | 310 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | $162 | 0.93 | 0.45 | |||
5 | 370 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 | $348 | 0.85 | 0.45 | |||
6 | 375 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 | $350 | 0.85 | 0.45 | |||
7 | 310 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | $242 | 0.97 | 0.40 | |||
22 | Painting | 0.026 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | $56 | 0.79 | 0.27 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | $80 | 0.80 | 0.27 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | $72 | 0.81 | 0.27 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | $64 | 0.86 | 0.33 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | $96 | 0.84 | 0.27 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | $96 | 0.85 | 0.27 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | $96 | 0.90 | 0.33 | |||
23 | Placing route signs | 0.026 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | $56 | 0.79 | 0.20 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | $80 | 0.80 | 0.20 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | $72 | 0.81 | 0.20 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | $64 | 0.86 | 0.20 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | $96 | 0.84 | 0.20 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | $96 | 0.85 | 0.20 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | $96 | 0.90 | 0.20 | |||
24 | Reservoir leak testing | 0.032 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 8 | $192 | 0.82 | 0.30 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | $192 | 0.80 | 0.30 | |||
3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | $160 | 0.78 | 0.30 | |||
4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | $144 | 0.79 | 0.35 | |||
5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 7 | $224 | 0.83 | 0.30 | |||
6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | $200 | 0.81 | 0.35 | |||
7 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 4 | $192 | 0.82 | 0.30 | |||
25 | Rectification of defect and provisional handover | 0.011 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | $1000 | 0 | 0.20 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ali Banihashemi, S., Khalilzadeh, M. Towards sustainable project scheduling with reducing environmental pollution of projects: fuzzy multi-objective programming approach to a case study of Eastern Iran. Environ Dev Sustain 25, 7737–7767 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02370-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02370-y