## 6 Results and Discussion  
### Case Study Results  
In this study, a target duration of 2500 d was set to apply casestudy data to the proposed scheduling model. To examine the difference between the two sets of outcomes (applying and not applying DP), different conditions were applied to derive two sets of results. First, the algorithm was implemented to schedule all activities by selecting only the alternatives with the minimum cost (without applying DP) during the scheduling process. The results are shown in Figure 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Main** & **Middle** & **Subcategory** & **Detailed** & **Workload (m3)** \\
**Category** & **Category** & **Subcategory** & **Condition** & **216** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Site preparation} & & breaking reinforced concrete & T \(<\) 30 cm & 528 \\  & & breaking reinforced concrete & T \(\geq\) 30 cm & 10 \\  & & breaking reinforced concrete & T \(\leq\) 30 cm & 72 \\  & & & T \(\geq\) 30 cm & 16 \\  & & staking stone wall & & 223 \\  & breaking existing & breaking concrete pavement & & 33 \\  & structures & breaking asphalt pavement & & 216 \\  & & removing sidewalk block packaging & & 2267 \\  & & concrete cutting & & 12 \\  & & asphalt cutting & & 1580 \\  & & crushing construction waste & & 757 \\  & topsoil removal & no rice paddy & & 31,020 \\  & remove tree and & logging & H = 5–8 m & 118,840 \\  & grass & cutting (sand) & & 222,432 \\  & rock (soft) & cutting (soft rock) & & 146,409 \\  & & vibration controlled blasting & middle scale & 25,528 \\  & & conventional blasting & & 80,383 \\  & & large-scale blasting & & 11,236 \\  & & blasting rock fragmentation & & 91,619 \\ soil & useable & sand & & 21,179 \\ transportation & soil transportation & soft rock & & 5503 \\  & & hard rock & & 2041 \\  & useable & dump truck (sand) & & 144,348 \\ soil & soil transportation & dump truck (soft rock) & & 83,599 \\ transportation & & dump truck (hard rock) & & 396,049 \\  & unavailable & sand & & 59,372 \\  & soil transportation & soft rock & & 95,925 \\  & & hard rock & & 272,307 \\  & roadbed & pilling up & & 168,237 \\  & filled-up ground & pilling up (rock) & & 542,455 \\ pilling up & subgrade & pilling up & & 42,136 \\ soil & greenbelt & pilling up & & 59,688 \\  & preparation work & cutting & & 20,544 \\  & slope soil & & & 83,161 \\  & compaction & & & \\ earthwork & standard frame & slope & & 498 \\ etc. & & horizontal & & 74 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Case study data. In this case, the target duration was set sufficiently long and resulted in scheduling outcomes in which only alternatives with lower costs for each activity were selected. Therefore, activities exceeding the target duration occurred, thus indicating that the scheduling method employed in this approach was incorrect. Subsequently, to confirm that the algorithm performs appropriately under the constraints of a limited target duration, scheduling was performed by applying DP. The results are shown in Figure 5.  
The form of scheduling performed using DP is similar to Figure 4, but the scheduling was performed by selecting alternatives that satisfy the target duration while minimizing costs during the selection of activity alternatives. Furthermore, the result of applying the case study to the model provides scheduling results at a detailed level of activity, which differ from the scheduling results using conventional methods, such as those shown in Figure 4, based on the DADER developed in this study. These results play a role in reducing the gap between the planning stage and the construction phase onsite, thereby minimizing unnecessary tasks such as additional work or rescheduling.