Li, H; Cao, J N and Love, P E D (1999) Using machine learning and GA to solve time-cost trade-off problems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(5), pp. 347-353. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Existing genetic algorithms (GA) based systems for solving time-cost trade-off problems suffer from two limitations. First, these systems require the user to manually craft the time-cost curves for formulating the objective functions. Second, these systems only deal with linear time-cost relationships. To overcome these limitations, this paper presents a computer system called MLGAS (Machine Learning and Genetic Algorithms based System), which integrates a machine learning method with GA. A quadratic template is introduced to capture the nonlinearity of time-cost relationships. The machine learning method automatically generates the quadratic time-cost curves from historical data and also measures the credibility of each quadratic time-cost curve. The quadratic curves are then used to formulate the objective function that can be solved by the GA. Several improvements are made to enhance the capacity of GA to prevent premature convergence. Comparisons of MLGAS with an experienced project manager indicate that MLGAS generates better solutions to nonlinear time-cost trade-off problems.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project manager, time-cost trade-off, genetic algorithm, computer system, machine learning |
| Subjects: | algorithms, quantity surveying, computing systems, profession, artificial intelligence |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here