advertisement

International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 Cause and Effect of Delay on Shoring Construction Project in the case of Addis Ababa Eng. Tobista zenebe Abstract: - Delay in construction project are a global phenomenon, causing a multitude of negative effects on the key project participant’s client, consultants, and contractor. There are fifty-four possible cause of delay were identified the delay cause were further classified in to nine major groups and also this study Identify seven major Effect of Delay on shoring construction project. The data were analyzed using relative important index and SPSS. The result suggested the client related factors, contractor related factors, consultant related factor, material related cause, Equipment Related cause, Labor related cause, external factor, Geotechnical investigation and Design factor is the most significant cause of the project delay in this study. Key words: - Cause, Effect, Relative important Index, Delay on shoring 1. INTRODUCTION In Addis Ababa city know days there are several high-rising buildings are being constructed that need a deep excavation for structural and functional purposes. It is important to practice shoring technology to protect the adjacent building from possible collapse. Shoring is the construction of a temporary structure to support temporarily an unsafe structure. These support walls laterally. Shoring uses for when walls bulge out, when walls crack due to unequal settlement of foundation and repairs are to be carried out to the cracked wall, when an adjacent structure needs pulling Generally, in Ethiopia, shoring work is perform with a small number of specialized firms in foundation work. Advance technology, techniques, cost, and higher down when openings are to be newly made or enlarged in a wall. This study mainly focused on the cause and effects of delays on shoring construction projects. In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 15 shoring contractors are specialized in shoring pile foundation in know days shoring technology are utilize because high-rise buildings are available in the city based on this, which is use for delay causes and examines the corresponding effects identified and provide a recommendation. Based on the findings to improve project performance and to avoid project delay on shoring construction projects in the further. demand come from the case of shoring work it may suffer capacity problems and make the project delay and fail. Page 1 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 2. Objective of the study The specific objectives of the study were: To find out the causes of delay in shoring Construction project. To assess the effects of delay in shoring Construction project. To examine the extent causes, and effects of delay in shoring construction projects. 3. Literature Review Yahya et al. (2013) explored that the factors related to contractor, client, consultant, material, and equipment have a significant impact on delay in construction project whereas labor and general environment factors found to have no effects on a delay of the construction project in Pakistan. Sambasivan et al. (2007) surveyed the causes and effects of delays in the Malaysian construction industry. The study identified the 10 most important causes of a delay from a list of 28 different causes and 6 different effects of delay. The ten most important causes were Contractor’s improper planning, Project and the discovered causes categorized under the following nine primary category: Consultant, Contractor, Design, Equipment, External, Labor, Material, Owner and Project related factors of delay. Aziz, Remon Fayek (2013) also analysis and identifies high-impact value of delay causes in Egypt as follows. The major cause of Delay at Egypt Construction project is Shortage of Contractor’s poor site Management, inadequate Contractor experience, inadequate Client’s finance and payments for completed work, problems with Subcontractors, and shortage of material, labor supply, equipment availability and failure, lack of communication between parties, and mistakes during the construction stage. Mansfield et al (1994) studied the causes of delay and cost overrun in construction projects in Nigeria. The results showed that the most important factors are financing and payments, poor contract management, changes in site conditions, shortage of material, and improper planning. Aziz, Remon Fayek (2013) made an investigation of significant causes of delay in the Egypt construction industry. They explored ninety-nine (99) factors of delay in construction equipment, Ineffective project planning and scheduling, Poor site management and investigation, Poor monetary control on site, Rework, Selecting non-skilled contractors, Sudden Accidents ,poor planning, low-skilled working team, Inadequate contractor experience, Frequent equipment breakdowns, Global financial crisis, Complexity of the work (project type, project scale, etc. Project Legal arguments between projects Stakeholders, disagreement between joint-ownership variations, poor construction method, non-skilled labor, Conflicts. Shakeel et al. (2006) made an investigation of significant causes of delay in the UAE construction industry. In the study, they indicated that the effects of construction delays are not only confined to the construction industry but influence the overall economy of a country like UAE, where construction plays a major role in its development and contributes 14% to the GDP. Thus, it is essential to define the most significant causes of delay to avoid or Page 2 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 minimize their impact on construction projects. The research disclosed that 50% of the construction projects in UAE encounter delays and are not complete on time. 4. Research Methodology Literature collecion about cause and effect of project Delay Questionnaire Destribution Population of this study consist of shoring pile contractor, clients and consultant on Addis Ababa. The sample size was determined using statistical formula put here under If the population is less than 1000, a sample size of 30% can be a representative of the population (Gay and Airasian 2003). Formula: - Analysis in SPSS Where n= N*0.3-------------------- Equation 1 Relative Important Index (RII) Results and Discussions Conclustion and Recommendation n = the sample size of the study. N = is the population size and team members who were working as consultant, contractor and client in shoring Project construction 0.3 represent 30% of population size. Based on the formula: n = 200 * 0.3 For this Research, I prefer to collect the required information by using questionnaire. The questionnaire divided into three parts. In addition, unstructured one-to-one interview will conducted with selected individuals represented n= 6 5. Data Analysis The data analysis is determined to establish the relative importance of various factors that contribute to causes and effects of construction delays. Analysis of data consists of calculating the Relative Importance Index (RII) and ranking of factors in each category based on the Relative Importance Index (RII) and by using SPSS Software. Where RII= Σn --------Equation 2 A*N RII = Relative Importance Index, = Number of respondents answer each factor Page 3 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 = weight given for each factor (ranging from 1 to 5), Finally, the results of the questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive analysis on SPSS Software and the results used to form the basis for recommendations as well as areas A = highest weight (i.e. 5 in our case), N = total number of respondent for further research. The methods Analysis used in analyzing the data were Descriptive Analysis this was follow by thorough discussions in order to draw a conclusion and to forward recommendations based on the findings of the study. 6. RESULT AND FINDIN Cause and Effect of Delay in Shoring Construction Project Analysis by using SPSS Software Delays in construction projects happen because of various factors and causes 54 delay-causing factors were identify and classify in to nine factor groups: client related factors, contractor related Factors, consultant related factors, material related factor, labor related factors, and equipment related factors, external related factors, Geotechnical Factors and Design Related Factor. Likert scale items are created by calculating a composite score (sum or mean) from four or more type Likert type items; therefore, the composite score for Likert scales should be analyzed at the interval measurement scale. Furthermore, for Likert scale data from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). 6.1 Cause of Delay in Shoring Construction Project 6.1.1 Client Related Cause (CLRC) Lack of on time finance and payment The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 20% of respondents were select Disagree, 21.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 50% of respondents were select Agree and also 6.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The mean of respondents to lack of on time Finance and payment were 3.40 with standard deviation of 0.94. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively. Interference on execution of work The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 26.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 45.0 % of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 21.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. On the Missing System 3.3%, are missing value Mean of respondents to Interference on execution of work were 2.88 with standard deviation of 0.796. The minimum and maximum of work were 1 and 4, respectively. Slowness in Decision-making The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 18.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 41.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 35 % of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Slowness in were 3.20 with standard deviation of 0.84. The minimum and maximum Slowness in Decision-making were 1 and 5, respectively. Let in site delivery for construction work Design The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 36.7 % of respondents were select Disagree, 35.0 % of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 25% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to let in site delivery for construction work design is 2.88 with standard deviation of 0.86. The minimum and maximum design were 1 and 5, respectively. Page 4 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 Poor Communication and Coordination According to Table 8 the result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 43.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 23.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 23.3% of respondent Were select Agree and also 8.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents is 2.93 to Poor Communication and Coordination with standard deviation of 1.039. The minimum and maximum for were 1 and 5, respectively 6.1.2 Contractor Related Cause (CONRC) Subcontractors related Problems The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 15% of respondents were select Disagree, 45% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 36.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to let in site delivery for construction work design is 3.28 with standard deviation of 0.761. The minimum and maximum work design were 2 and 5, respectively. Poor Site Management and Performance The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 18.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 20% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 56.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Poor site management and performance were 3.39 with standard deviation of 0.871 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum Poor site management and performance were 1 and 5, respectively. Ineffective Project Planning and Scheduling The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 21.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 61.7 % of respondents were select Agree and also 6.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of of consultant were 2.64 with standard deviation of 1.003 and when we see on the missing of respondents to ineffective project planning and scheduling were 3.63 with standard deviation of 0.802. The minimum and maximum Poor site management and performance were 1 and 5, respectively. Inappropriate Construction Methods The result Show that 5% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 46.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 35% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.24 with standard deviation of 0.858 and when We see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively those value are on the Statistics table in the Annex II. 7. Consultant Related Cause (CURC) Inadequate Experience of consultant The result Show that 5% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 53.4% of respondents were select Disagree, 19% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 17.2% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.2% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The of consultant were 2.64 with standard deviation of 1.003 and when we see on the missing of Mean of respondents to Inadequate Experience Delay in Site Mobilization The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 30.% of respondents were select Disagree, 21.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 43.3% of responses were select Agree and also 3.3% of Value Respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.17 with standard deviation of 0.960. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively. Page 5 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 And maximum were 1 and 5, respectively Frequent change and variation orders Poor Communication and coordination The result Show that 8.3% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 43.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 16.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 28.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 2.75 with standard deviation of 1.068. The minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 40% of respondents were select Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 30% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 2.93 with standard deviation of 0.954 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 25% of respondents were select Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 46.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.28 with standard deviation of 0.783 the minimum and maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively. Poor contract management The result Show that 3.4% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 20.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 47.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 28.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of Inaccurate Site Investigation The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 13.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 40.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 39.0% of respondents were select Agree and also 6.8% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to frequent change and variation orders were 3.39 with standard deviation of 0.810 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively. respondents to frequent change and variation orders were 3.02 with standard deviation of 0.799 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 4, respectively Unclear and inadequate details in drawings The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 30.5% of respondents were select Disagree, 30.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 35% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.05 with standard deviation of 0.899 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively. Slow response and inspection The result Show that 5.1% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 37.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 25.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 23.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 8.5% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 2.93 with standard deviation of 1.081 and Page 6 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively. 8. Material Related Cause (MRC) Shortage of construction materials The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select Disagree, 23.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 60% of respondents were select Agree and also 15% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.87 with standard deviation of 0.724 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Change in material type during construction The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 13.6% of respondents were select Disagree, 30.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 49.2% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.1% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.42 with standard deviation of 0.855 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. Rise in material prices The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 5% of respondents were select Disagree, 11.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 36.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 46.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 4.25 with standard deviation of 0.856 the minimum and maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively. Inadequate material The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 8.5% of respondents were select Disagree, 15.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, Delay in material delivery The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 18.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 53.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 18.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.78 with standard deviation of 0.904 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Late procurement of materials The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 15% of respondents were select Disagree, 18.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 56.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 10% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.62 with standard deviation of 0.865 the minimum and maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively. Quality of material The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 16.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 28.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 46.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 4.13 with standard deviation of 0.982he minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively. 38.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 36.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 4.05 with standard deviation of 0.936 and when we Page 7 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5, respectively. 9. Equipment Related Cause (ERC) Shortage of equipment The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 23.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 28.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 38.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 8.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.28 with standard deviation of 0.976 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Equipment breakdown The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 6.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 60% of respondents were select Agree and also 8.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.70 with standard deviation of 0.720 the minimum and maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively. Low level of maintainers Low level of skilled operator's The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 25% of respondents were select Disagree, 35% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 35% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.07 with standard deviation of 0.899 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Low productivity and efficiency of equipment The result Show that 3.4% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 13.6% of respondents were select Disagree, 42.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 35.6% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.1% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 3.25 with standard deviation of 0.883 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. Shortage of equipment spare parts The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 3.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 13.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 73.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 10% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 21.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 35% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 35% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.07 with standard deviation of 0.899 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.90 with standard deviation of 0.602 the minimum and maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively 10. Labor Related Cause (LRC) Shortage of Labors The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 26.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 8.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 58.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 5% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.38with standard deviation of 0.993 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Personal conflict among labors Page 8 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 30.5% of respondents were select Disagree, 27.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 40.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of Low labor productivity The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 15.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 37.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 42.4% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.4% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 3.31 with standard deviation of 0.836 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. Labor injuries The result Show that 8.3% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 45% of respondents were select Disagree, 23.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 20% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of 7. External Factors Delay in obtaining permit The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 16.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 51.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 6.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 2.65 with standard deviation of 1.005 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 3.07 with standard deviation of 0.888and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 4, respectively. Non attendance The result Show that 6.8% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 44.1% of respondents were select Disagree, 25.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 20.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.4% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 2.69 with standard deviation of 0.987 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 2.65 with standard deviation of 1.005 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Weather Condition The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select Disagree, 6.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 41.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 50% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 2.65 with standard deviation of 1.005 the minimum and maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively. Natural Disasters The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 15% of respondents were select Disagree, 35% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 46% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction methods were 3.38 with standard deviation of 0.783 the minimum and maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively. Regulatory changes The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 32.2% of respondents were select Page 9 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 Disagree, 47.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 18.6% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 2.83 with standard deviation of 0.746 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 4, respectively. Unforeseen site conditions The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 26.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 40% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 31.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 3.08 with standard deviation of 0.809. The minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5, respectively. Delay in providing services from utilities (Such as water, electricity, etc.) The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 41.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 28.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 23.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 5% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 2.88 with standard deviation of 0.958. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively. Government Policy The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 52.5% of respondents were select Disagree, 27.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 13.6% of respondents were Select Agree and also 5.1% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 2.68 with standard deviation of 0.918 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively 8. Geotechnical Factors The varying nature of soil stratum The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 5% of respondents were select Disagree, 8.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 70% of respondents were select Agree and also 16.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 3.98 with standard deviation of 0.676. The minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively. Ground water level The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 26.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 60% of respondents were select Agree and also 11.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents 3.82 with standard deviation of 0.651 the minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5, respectively . Effects on nearby utility The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 11.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 38.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 48.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 4.33 with standard deviation of 0.752 the minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively. Lack of well-trained geotechnical investigator The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 5% of respondents were select Disagree, 18.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 45% of respondents were select Agree and also 31.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to 4.03 with standard deviation of 0.843 the minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively. Page 10 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 Small samples taken to deduct the whole soil Nature. The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select Disagree, 8.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, Lack of study about the background of the site surface Area based on the surface is military or historical The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select Diameter of anchor pile The result Show that 5.1% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 16.9% of respondents were select Disagree, 25.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 45.8% of respondents were select Agree and also 6.8% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.32 with standard deviation of 1.008 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. Height of anchor pile The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 23.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 36.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 33.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Height of anchor pile were 3.10 with 51.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 40% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondent’s 4.32 with standard deviation of 0.624 the minimum and maximum of were 3 and 5, respectively. Disagree, 21.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 46.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 30% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of equipment were 4.05 with standard deviation of 0.769 the minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5, respectively. standard deviation of 0.915 the minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. Spacing between consecutive anchor pile The result Show that 3.4% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 22% of respondents were select Disagree, 44.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 28.8% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.03 with standard deviation of 0.850 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. Angle of inclination of tie–back anchorage The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 30% of respondents were select Disagree, 43.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 23.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 0%of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Height of anchor pile were 2.87 with standard deviation of 0.812 the minimum and maximum of Height of anchor pile were 1 and 4, respectively Page 11 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 Percentage of stressing The result Show that 5% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 50% of respondents were select Disagree, 31.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 13.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Height of anchor pile were 2.53 with standard deviation of 0.791 the minimum and maximum were 1 and 4, respectively. Effect of delay in shoring Construction project Delay in shoring Construction project occurs in some of the factors that Identify in previous those Factors affect the project in various way. This study try to observe 7 major Effects of project Delays on shoring Construction Project those are Time Overrun, Coast Overrun, Quality, Dispute between Parties involved Arbitration, Abonnement of Construction project and also Litigation and Court Case. Time Overrun The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 0% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 36.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 60% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Time Overrun were 4.52 with standard deviation of 0.748 the minimum and maximum were 1 and 5 respectively. Cost Overrun The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 3.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 3.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 30% of respondents were select Agree and also 63% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Cost Overrun were 4.53 with standard deviation of 0.721 the minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5 respectively. Quality The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select Disagree, 10% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 31.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 56.7% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Quality were 4.42 with standard deviation of 0.809 the minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively. Dispute between parties The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 53.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 13.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Height of anchor pile were 3.72 with standard deviation of 0.804 the minimum and maximum were 2 and 5 respectively. Arbitration The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 5.1% of respondents were select Disagree, 40.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 47.5% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.1% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.49 with standard deviation of 0.751 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of Arbitration were 1 and 5, respectively. Abandonment of Construction Project The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 16.9% of respondents were select Disagree, 32.2% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 33.9% of respondents were select Agree and also 15.3% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.44 with standard deviation of 1.005 and when we Page 12 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively. Litigation and court case The result Show that 5% of respondents are select strongly disagree, 28.8% of respondents were select Disagree, 27.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 28.8% of respondents were select Agree and also 10.2% of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.10 with standard deviation of 1.094 and when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively The Relative Important Index (RII) Techniques The RII value had a range from 1 to 5 (1 is Strongly Disagree and 5 is Strongly Agree). One of the objective of this study was to find out assess, evaluate and examine the cause and Effect of delay on shoring Construction Project by using Relative Important Index. The following Equation is to show the relative important Index: Top Delay Causing Factors on Shoring Construction Project In this research, we have seen 54 Causing Factors those Factors ranked by respondents, 10 most:Important factors causing delay in shoring construction project. Top 10 delay Causing factors are list as follow10 Important factors causing delay in construction project are summarized and presented Ground water level with RII= 1.17, Weather condition with RII= 0.87, effect on nearby utility RII= 0.86. Rise in material price with RII= 0.85, Quality of material with the RII= 0.82 Lack of study and background of the site Surface area based on the site is military or historical surface Area with RII value= 0.81, lack of geotechnical investigator with RII = 0.80. Top 10 Delay Causing Factors Delay cause RII Ground water level Weather Condition Effects on nearby utility’s Small sample deduct the whole soil nature Rise in Material Price Quality of material Lack of study and background of the site surface Area. Lack of geotechnical investigator Varity nature of soil stratum Inadequate material Rank 0.99 0.87 0.86 0.86 1 2 3 4 0.85 0.82 0.81 5 6 7 0.80 8 0.79 0.79 9 10 Table 1 TOP 10 Delay Cause Varity natural of soil stratum with RII =0.79 and Inadequate materials with RII value = 0.79 Suggested as the most important delay causing Factors on shoring construction project. Page 13 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 Top Effects of Delay on Shoring Construction Project In this research, we have seen seven Effects ranked by respondents, 7most important factors that affect delay in shoring construction project. The First one is Time overrun the RII value is 0.90, Cost overrun 0.90 RII value, Quality RII value is 0.88. Dispute between parties RII value is 0.74 Arbitration RII value is 0.68, Abonnement Of construction project RII value is 0.67 and finally Litigation and court case RII Value is 0.61 those factors are that affect shoring construction project in Know days. Factors that Affect project Delay Delay Effects RII Rank Time overrun Cost overrun Quality Dispute between Parties Arbitration Abonnement of construction project Litigation and court case 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.74 1 2 3 4 0.68 0.67 5 6 0.61 7 Table 2 Top Delay Effects on shoring Construction project Conclusion The major finding of the analysis part of this research is identify the major cause of delay in shoring construction project in the case of Addis Ababa. The findings of the research showed that the frequency distribution and relative important index of that the research trend. The research show that low experience of using variety of construction controlling tools and techniques by shoring contractors, clients and consultant. Factors and effects that respondents rank must improve by using different controlling tools and technical system to involve the gap between them. Geotechnical investigation is the most influential and major factor on shoring construction project, which result Background of the site surface area, Lack of well-trained Geotechnical investigators and small sample, deduct the whole soil nature are the major factors that cause delay on shoring construction project. Material rise in price, Quality of material and inadequate materials are also one of the most important factors that cause project delay and effect the project time and coast. References Adam, A. J.-E.-H. (n.d.). Aggregation of factors causing cost overruns and time delays in large public construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Man trends and implications” Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006, P. e. (n.d.). Durdyev, M. H. (Comprehensive list in 2018 ). Cause of Delay on Construction Project:. School of Architecture and built Environment Deakin University, Geelong Australia. Kuhil, A. M. ( Volume 9/Issue 3/Article No-2/10-1April 2019/9). International Journal of Management Res earch & Review ISSN: 2249-7196 IJMRR. Page 14 International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication ISSN 2229-55 18 Acknowledgment First, I would like to thank God for his priceless gift making this possible to guide and protect me in every step toward any achievement Finally thanks to all my family and friends for their uncountable advice, encouragements and I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Zerayhu Eshete for his continuous guidance throughout the whole research pray for the success of my journey I would like to say stay blessed! Page 15