Tucker, S N (1988) A single alternative formula for department of health and social security S-curves. Construction Management and Economics, 6(1), pp. 13-23. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The formula most commonly used in the United Kingdom for prediction of cash flows during construction of a building is that published by the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS). The one empirical formula for the S-curve requires a series of parameters to be used for different contract costs. From a reliability theory approach, an alternative mathematical form, which includes the Weibull function, has been proposed as the basis for the S-curves. This paper demonstrates that not only can the Weibull function be used as an excellent altnerative to the DHSS formula but also that the Weibull function overcomes some of the limitations of the original formula. Relationships between the Weibull parameter values for each of the fits to the set of DHSS curves are derived empirically so that one single formula with a total of seven parameters replaces the DHSS formula and its associated tables for different project costs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction costs; cost planning; mathematical models; quantity surveying |
| Index terms: | construction cost, s-curve, mathematical model, surveying, cash flow, project cost, United Kingdom, cost planning |
| Subjects: | mathematical modelling, health monitoring assessment and metrics, financial and cost management, economics, financial management, Geography |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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