Multi-segment multi-criteria approach for selection of trenchless construction methods

The research work presented in this thesis has two broad objectives as well as five individual goals. The first objective is to search and determine the minimum cost and corresponding goodness-of-fit by using a different combination of methods that are capable of resolving the problem that exists in multiple segments. This approach can account for variations in unit price and the cost of the design and the inspection associated with multiple methods. The second objective is to calculate the minimum risk for the preferred solution set. The five individual goals are 1) reduction in total cost, 2) application of Genetic Algorithm (GA) for construction method selection with focus on trenchless technology, 3) application of Fuzzy Inference System for likelihood of risk, 4) risk assessment in HDD projects, and 5) Carbon footprint calculation. In most construction projects, multiple segments are involved in a single project. However, there is no single model developed yet to aid the selection of appropriate method(s) based on the consideration of multiple-criteria. In this study, a multi-segment conceptualizes a combination of individuals or groups of mainlines, manholes, and laterals. Multi-criteria takes into account the technical viability, direct cost, social cost, carbon footprint, and risks in the pipelines. Three different segments analyzed are 1) an 8 inch diameter, 280 foot long gravity sewer pipe, 2) a 21 inch diameter, 248 foot long gravity sewer pipe, and 3) a 12 inch diameter, 264 foot long gravity sewer pipe. It is found that GA would not only eliminate the shortcomings of competing mathematical approaches, but also enables complex optimization scenarios to be examined quickly to the optimization of multi-criteria for multi-segments. Furthermore, GA follows a uniform iterative procedure that is easy to code and decode for running the algorithm. Any trenchless installation project is associated with some level of risk. Due to the underground installation of trenchless technologies, the buried risk could be catastrophic if not assessed promptly. Therefore, risk management plays a key role in the construction of utilities. Conventional risk assessment approach quantifies risk as a product of likelihood and severity of risk, and does not consider the interrelation among different risk input variables. However, in real life installation projects, the input factors are interconnected, somewhat overlapped, and exist with fuzziness or vagueness. Fuzzy logic system surpasses this shortcoming and delivers the output through a process of fuzzification, fuzzy inference, fuzzy rules, and defuzzification. It is found in the study that Mamdani FIS has the potential to address the fuzziness, interconnection, and overlapping of different input variables and compute an overall risk output for a given scenario which is beyond the scope of conventional risk assessment

A hybrid multi-criteria decision making method for risk assessment of public-private partnership projects

As governments embark on Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects to develop their infrastructure, effective risk assessment has become an important step to ensure success of these projects. However, there are many unsuccessful stories of PPP projects that have been reported all around the world. Thus, it is essential for both public and private sectors to apply efficient risk assessment approaches to allocate and manage risks more effectively. Literature review revealed a continuous endeavor for better PPP project risk modelling and assessment. Various techniques have been developed for use in the management of risks in construction. However, these techniques are limited to addressing risks relating to only cost, schedule, or technical performance individually or at best a combination of cost and schedule risks. Previous work so far is lacking a comprehensive model capable of handling impact of risks on all project objectives simultaneously; namely cost, time and quality. Thus, the main objective of this study is to develop a hybrid risk assessment method that capable of capturing impact of risks on the three project objectives comprehensively. To achieve this aim, this research explores the risk assessment approaches and proposes a hybrid alternative method based on the Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) and Multiple Objective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO). The Fuzzy logic was used to convert linguistic principles into systematic quantitative-based analysis. Also, in order to consider the dependency and feedback between risks and criteria, ANP method is applied as a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. Then, MOPSO, as a MCDM method, was used to assess the risks based on the project objectives. Objective functions have been developed to minimize the total time and cost of the project and maximize the quality. The research approach was a mixed-method approach and the field work included a series of questionnaires and interviews. It started with semi-structured interviews with PPP professionals. A mail survey was administered and more than 114 questionnaires were sent to construction and PPP professionals based in Malaysia. Out of 114, 88 valid responses have been received. An on-line survey was carried out as well in order to enrich the findings of the mail survey. The proposed hybrid approach was used to assess the collected data. A total of 30 significant risks were identified and evaluated. According to the results, it was found that “construction completion”, “construction cost overrun” and “interest rate volatility” are the highest ranks associated with the Malaysian PPP projects risks. Finally, the viability of the proposed hybrid approach was investigated through conducting semi-structured interviews with PPP professionals from construction and administration sector. It is concluded that the proposed hybrid MCDM method for risk assessment is a viable alternative to the existing practice. This may help bridging the gap between theory and practice of risk assessment in construction projects. It also can be applied through the public and private sectors to improve risk assessment and management. The research findings recommend further exploration of the potential applications of hybrid MCDM methods in construction management domain

AGGREGATE RISK OF A LARGE COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OF NPP

The article identifies the problems of the modern international nuclear energy market, analyzes domestic and foreign experience in the construction of technically complex megaprojects, studies and systematizes organizational and technical aspects of the concept of reliability and risks of technically complex industrial facilities on the example of an international project for the construction of a nuclear power plant. The purpose of the research article is to solve one of the most important tasks – to determine the total investment risk and its assessment in an inextricable relationship with the stages of the project life cycle. The article systematizes both the principles of assessing the organizational and technical reliability of the system under study, as well as the methods of types of aggregate investment risk. A proprietary multi-criteria approach to the concept of reliability is being developed using modern theoretical methods in the context of the development of nuclear power plant construction projects abroad, respectively, taking into account country and industry risks

A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Design

[EN] Given the great impacts associated with the construction and maintenance of infrastructures in both the environmental, the economic and the social dimensions, a sustainable approach to their design appears essential to ease the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. Multicriteria decision-making methods are usually applied to address the complex and often conflicting criteria that characterise sustainability. The present study aims to review the current state of the art regarding the application of such techniques in the sustainability assessment of infrastructures, analysing as well the sustainability impacts and criteria included in the assessments. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is the most frequently used weighting technique. Simple Additive Weighting has turned out to be the most applied decision-making method to assess the weighted criteria. Although a life cycle assessment approach is recurrently used to evaluate sustainability, standardised concepts, such as cost discounting, or presentation of the assumed functional unit or system boundaries, as required by ISO 14040, are still only marginally used. Additionally, a need for further research in the inclusion of fuzziness in the handling of linguistic variables is identified.The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER funding (Project no. BIA2017-85098-R).Navarro, IJ.; Yepes, V.; Martí, JV. (2019). A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Design. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2019(6134803):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6134803S11620196134803Kyriacou, A. P., Muinelo-Gallo, L., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2019). The efficiency of transport infrastructure investment and the role of government quality: An empirical analysis. Transport Policy, 74, 93-102. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.017García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & Alcalá, J. (2014). Optimization of concrete I-beams using a new hybrid glowworm swarm algorithm. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 11(7), 1190-1205. doi:10.1590/s1679-78252014000700007Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., García-Segura, T., & González-Vidosa, F. (2017). Heuristics in optimal detailed design of precast road bridges. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 17(4), 738-749. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2017.02.006Frangopol, D. M. (2011). Life-cycle performance, management, and optimisation of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges1. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7(6), 389-413. doi:10.1080/15732471003594427Safi, M., Sundquist, H., & Karoumi, R. (2015). Cost-Efficient Procurement of Bridge Infrastructures by Incorporating Life-Cycle Cost Analysis with Bridge Management Systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 20(6), 04014083. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000673Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & González-Vidosa, F. (2018). Life cycle impact assessment of corrosion preventive designs applied to prestressed concrete bridge decks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 698-713. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.110Zhang, Y.-R., Wu, W.-J., & Wang, Y.-F. (2016). Bridge life cycle assessment with data uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 569-576. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1035-7García-Segura, T., Penadés-Plà, V., & Yepes, V. (2018). Sustainable bridge design by metamodel-assisted multi-objective optimization and decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 904-915. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.177Van den Heede, P., & De Belie, N. (2014). A service life based global warming potential for high-volume fly ash concrete exposed to carbonation. Construction and Building Materials, 55, 183-193. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.033Braga, A. M., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J. (2017). Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 529-543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.057Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Dong, Y. H., Lo, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2017). Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(8), 1654-1674. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1373-0Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2015). A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(8), 1166-1180. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0908-5Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Bayesian network method for decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 521-534. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140Montalbán-Domingo, L., García-Segura, T., Sanz, M. A., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Social sustainability criteria in public-work procurement: An international perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1355-1371. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.083Zamarrón-Mieza, I., Yepes, V., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2017). A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for aging-dam management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 217-230. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.092Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., & Pellicer, E. (2018). A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 496-513. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022Reza, B., Sadiq, R., & Hewage, K. (2011). Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle analysis. Construction and Building Materials, 25(4), 2053-2066. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.041Pons, O., & de la Fuente, A. (2013). Integrated sustainability assessment method applied to structural concrete columns. Construction and Building Materials, 49, 882-893. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.009Mosalam, K. M., Alibrandi, U., Lee, H., & Armengou, J. (2018). Performance-based engineering and multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable and resilient building design. Structural Safety, 74, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.03.005Perini, K., & Rosasco, P. (2013). Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall systems. Building and Environment, 70, 110-121. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.012Gilani, G., Blanco, A., & Fuente, A. de la. (2017). A New Sustainability Assessment Approach Based on Stakeholder’s Satisfaction for Building Façades. Energy Procedia, 115, 50-58. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.006Moussavi Nadoushani, Z. S., Akbarnezhad, A., Ferre Jornet, J., & Xiao, J. (2017). Multi-criteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria. Building and Environment, 121, 67-78. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016Guzmán-Sánchez, S., Jato-Espino, D., Lombillo, I., & Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M. (2018). Assessment of the contributions of different flat roof types to achieving sustainable development. Building and Environment, 141, 182-192. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.063Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Pourhossein, M., Yazdani, M., & Kazimieras Zavadskas, E. (2018). Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(1), 357-365. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002Invidiata, A., Lavagna, M., & Ghisi, E. (2018). Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Building and Environment, 139, 58-68. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041Kamali, M., Hewage, K., & Milani, A. S. (2018). Life cycle sustainability performance assessment framework for residential modular buildings: Aggregated sustainability indices. Building and Environment, 138, 21-41. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.019Pons, O., & Aguado, A. (2012). Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Building and Environment, 53, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.007Akadiri, P. O., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Chinyio, E. A. (2013). Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Automation in Construction, 30, 113-125. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004Motuzienė, V., Rogoža, A., Lapinskienė, V., & Vilutienė, T. (2016). Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 532-541. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.103Samani, P., Mendes, A., Leal, V., Miranda Guedes, J., & Correia, N. (2015). A sustainability assessment of advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Building and Environment, 92, 182-191. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.012AL-Nassar, F., Ruparathna, R., Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Haider, H., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2016). Sustainability assessment framework for low rise commercial buildings: life cycle impact index-based approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(8), 2579-2590. doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1168-1ALwaer, H., & Clements-Croome, D. J. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Building and Environment, 45(4), 799-807. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.019Yu, J. Q., Dang, B., Clements-Croome, D., & Xu, S. (2011). Sustainability Assessment Indicators and Methodology for Intelligent Buildings. Advanced Materials Research, 368-373, 3829-3832. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.368-373.3829Drejeris, R., & Kavolynas, A. (2014). Multi-criteria Evaluation of Building Sustainability Behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 502-511. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.894IGNATIUS, J., RAHMAN, A., YAZDANI, M., ŠAPARAUSKAS, J., & HARON, S. H. (2016). AN INTEGRATED FUZZY ANP–QFD APPROACH FOR GREEN BUILDING ASSESSMENT. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 22(4), 551-563. doi:10.3846/13923730.2015.1120772Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Arzaghi, S., Stauskis, G., & Zavadskas, E. (2018). A Hybrid Fuzzy BWM-COPRAS Method for Analyzing Key Factors of Sustainable Architecture. Sustainability, 10(5), 1626. doi:10.3390/su10051626San-José Lombera, J.-T., & Garrucho Aprea, I. (2010). A system approach to the environmental analysis of industrial buildings. Building and Environment, 45(3), 673-683. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.012Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Rojí, E., García, H., & Larrauri, M. (2015). Sustainability-Related Decision Making in Industrial Buildings: An AHP Analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2015/157129Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Rojí, E., Larrauri, M., & Álvarez, I. (2016). Sustainability assessment methodology for industrial buildings: three case studies. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 33(2), 106-124. doi:10.1080/10286608.2016.1148143Heravi, G., Fathi, M., & Faeghi, S. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making method for optimal selection of sustainable industrial building options focused on petrochemical projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2999-3013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.168Formisano, A., & Mazzolani, F. M. (2015). On the selection by MCDM methods of the optimal system for seismic retrofitting and vertical addition of existing buildings. Computers & Structures, 159, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.06.016Terracciano, G., Di Lorenzo, G., Formisano, A., & Landolfo, R. (2014). Cold-formed thin-walled steel structures as vertical addition and energetic retrofitting systems of existing masonry buildings. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 19(7), 850-866. doi:10.1080/19648189.2014.974832Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2007). Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building’s regeneration alternatives. Building and Environment, 42(1), 436-451. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.001Hosseini, S. M. A., de la Fuente, A., & Pons, O. (2016). Multicriteria Decision-Making Method for Sustainable Site Location of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing in Urban Areas. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016036. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001137Malekly, H., Meysam Mousavi, S., & Hashemi, H. (2010). A fuzzy integrated methodology for evaluating conceptual bridge design. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4910-4920. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.024Gervásio, H., & Simões da Silva, L. (2012). A probabilistic decision-making approach for the sustainable assessment of infrastructures. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7121-7131. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.032Balali, V., Mottaghi, A., Shoghli, O., & Golabchi, M. (2014). Selection of Appropriate Material, Construction Technique, and Structural System of Bridges by Use of Multicriteria Decision-Making Method. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2431(1), 79-87. doi:10.3141/2431-11Jakiel, P., & Fabianowski, D. (2015). FAHP model used for assessment of highway RC bridge structural and technological arrangements. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4054-4061. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.039Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2015). A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(4), 1024-1036. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001Kripka, M., Yepes, V., & Milani, C. (2019). Selection of Sustainable Short-Span Bridge Design in Brazil. Sustainability, 11(5), 1307. doi:10.3390/su11051307Wang, Y.-M., Liu, J., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2008). An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513-525. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2007.09.002Abu Dabous, S., & Alkass, S. (2008). Decision support method for multi‐criteria selection of bridge rehabilitation strategy. Construction Management and Economics, 26(8), 883-893. doi:10.1080/01446190802071190Chen, T.-Y. (2014). The extended linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(7-8), 2101-2117. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2013.10.017Begić, F., & Afgan, N. H. (2007). Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system—Bosnian case. Energy, 32(10), 1979-1985. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.02.006Cartelle Barros, J. J., Lara Coira, M., de la Cruz López, M. P., & del Caño Gochi, A. (2015). Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems. Energy, 89, 473-489. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.110Klein, S. J. W., & Whalley, S. (2015). Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy, 79, 127-149. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.007Montajabiha, M. (2015). An Extended PROMETHE II Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Technique Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic for Sustainable Energy Planning. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(2), 221-244. doi:10.1007/s10726-015-9440-zFetanat, A., & Khorasaninejad, E. (2015). A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore wind farm site selection: A case study of Iran. Ocean & Coastal Management, 109, 17-28. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.005Medina-González, S., Espuña, A., & Puigjaner, L. (2018). An efficient uncertainty representation for the design of sustainable energy generation systems. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 131, 144-159. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2017.11.044Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2016). Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making framework based on life cycle environmental, economic and social impacts: The case of U.S. wind energy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 8, 78-92. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2016.06.006FUENTE, A. de la, ARMENGOU, J., PONS, O., & AGUADO, A. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems: application to a new precast concrete alternative. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 23(2), 194-203. doi:10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347Afshar, A., Mariño, M. A., Saadatpour, M., & Afshar, A. (2010). Fuzzy TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Applied to Karun Reservoirs System. Water Resources Management, 25(2), 545-563. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9713-xSun, X., Ning, P., Tang, X., Yi, H., Li, K., Zhou, L., & Xu, X. (2013). Environmental Risk Assessment System for Phosphogypsum Tailing Dams. The Scientific World Journal, 2013, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2013/680798Martin, C., Ruperd, Y., & Legret, M. (2007). Urban stormwater drainage management: The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1), 338-349. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.019Dong, X., Zeng, S., Chen, J., & Zhao, D. (2008). An integrated assessment method of urban drainage system: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 2(2), 150-156. doi:10.1007/s11783-008-0014-zTahmasebi Birgani, Y., & Yazdandoost, F. (2018). An Integrated Framework to Evaluate Resilient-Sustainable Urban Drainage Management Plans Using a Combined-adaptive MCDM Technique. Water Resources Management, 32(8), 2817-2835. doi:10.1007/s11269-018-1960-2De la Fuente, A., Pons, O., Josa, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4762-4770. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002Onu, U. P., Xie, Q., & Xu, L. (2017). A Fuzzy TOPSIS model Framework for Ranking Sustainable Water Supply Alternatives. Water Resources Management, 31(9), 2579-2593. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1636-3Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2017). Selecting Sustainability Indicators for Small to Medium Sized Urban Water Systems Using Fuzzy-ELECTRE. Water Environment Research, 89(3), 238-249. doi:10.2175/106143016x14798353399494Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method. Automation in Construction, 40, 33-43. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.009Jato-Espino, D., Rodriguez-Hernandez, J., Andrés-Valeri, V. C., & Ballester-Muñoz, F. (2014). A fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria model for the selection of urban pervious pavements. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(15), 6807-6817. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.008Torres-Machí, C., Chamorro, A., Pellicer, E., Yepes, V., & Videla, C. (2015). Sustainable Pavement Management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2523(1), 56-63. doi:10.3141/2523-07Santos, J., Bressi, S., Cerezo, V., & Lo Presti, D. (2019). SUP&R DSS: A sustainability-based decision support system for road pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 524-540. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.308Oses, U., Rojí, E., Cuadrado, J., & Larrauri, M. (2018). Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Tool for Local Governments to Evaluate the Global and Local Sustainability of Transportation Systems in Urban Areas: Case Study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(1), 04017019. doi:10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000406Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Nguye, H. H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 19-39. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., & Tarsenis, S. (2010). Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition waste management facility. Building and Environment, 45(10), 2317-2326. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.04.016Rochikashvili, M., & Bongaerts, J. C. (2016). Multi-criteria Decision-making for Sustainable Wall Paints and Coatings Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Procedia, 96, 923-933. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.167Ugwu, O. O., & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective. Building and Environment, 42(2), 665-680. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.018Reyes, J. P., San-José, J. T., Cuadrado, J., & Sancibrian, R. (2014). Health & Safety criteria for determining the sustainable value of construction projects. Safety Science, 62, 221-232. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.023Dobrovolskienė, N., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2015). An Index to Measure Sustainability of a Business Project in the Construction Industry: Lithuanian Case. Sustainability, 8(1), 14. doi:10.3390/su8010014Marzouk, M., & Azab, S. (2014). Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 82, 41-49. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 50-63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method. Management Science, 31(6), 647-656. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647Kabir, G., Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2013). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(9), 1176-1210. doi:10.1080/15732479.2013.795978Podvezko, V. (2011). The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2). doi:10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310Kaya, İ., Çolak, M., & Terzi, F. (2018). Use of MCDM techniques for energy policy and decision-making problems: A review. International Journal of Energy Research, 42(7), 2344-2372. doi:10.1002/er.4016Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., MD Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipo

Decision-making through sustainability

From immemorial time, dams have contributed significantly for the progress of civilizations. For this reason, nowadays, there is a vast engineering heritage. Over the years, these infrastructures can present some ordinary maintenance issues associated with their normal operation or with ageing processes. Normally, these problems do not represent an important risk for the structure, but they have to be attended. To do it, owners of dams have to finance many ordinary interventions. As it is impossible to carry out all of them at the same time, managers have to make a decision and select the most “important” ones. However, it is not easy because interventions usually have very different natures (for example: repair a bottom outlet, change gates, seal a crack...) and they cannot use a classical risk analysis for these type of interventions. The authors, who are aware this problem, present, in this paper, a multi-criteria decision-making system to prioritize these interventions with the aim of providing engineers a useful tool, with which they can prioritize the interventions from the most important to the least. To do it, the authors have used MIVES. This tool defines the Prioritization Index for the Management of Hydraulic Structures (PIMHS), which assesses, in two phases, the contribution to sustainability of each intervention. The first phase measures the damage of the dam, and the second measures the social, environmental and economic impacts. At the end of the paper, a case of study is presented where some interventions are evaluated with PIMHS.Postprint (published version

Multi crteria decision making and its applications : a literature review

This paper presents current techniques used in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and their applications. Two basic approaches for MCDM, namely Artificial Intelligence MCDM (AIMCDM) and Classical MCDM (CMCDM) are discussed and investigated. Recent articles from international journals related to MCDM are collected and analyzed to find which approach is more common than the other in MCDM. Also, which area these techniques are applied to. Those articles are appearing in journals for the year 2008 only. This paper provides evidence that currently, both AIMCDM and CMCDM are equally common in MCDM

Optimization of the supplier selection process in prefabrication using BIM

Prefabrication offers substantial benefits including reduction in construction waste, material waste, energy use, labor demands, and delivery time, and an improvement in project constructability and cost certainty. As the material cost accounts for nearly 70% of the total cost of the prefabrication project, to select a suitable material supplier plays an important role in such a project. The purpose of this study is to present a method for supporting supplier selection of a prefabrication project. The proposed method consists of three parts. First, a list of assessment criteria was established to evaluate the suitability of supplier alternatives. Second, Building Information Modelling (BIM) was adopted to provide sufficient information about the project requirements and suppliers’ profiles, which facilitates the storage and sharing of information. Finally, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to rank the importance of the assessment criteria and obtain the score of supplier alternatives. The suppliers were ranked based on the total scores. To illustrate how to use the proposed method, it was applied to a real prefabrication project. The proposed method facilitates the supplier selection process by providing sufficient information in an effective way and by improving the understanding of the project requirements

The PFI Sustainability Evaluation Tool: A methodology for evaluating of sustainability within PFI housing projects

In the UK there is a need to provide more housing in order to meet increased demand. The problem is particularly acute in the social housing sector. There is also a drive to reduce CO2 emissions from housing, whilst addressing issues of social sustainability. Accordingly governments have sought to combine the goals of sustainable development with housing policy in order to provide not just more housing, but more sustainable housing. In a time of public sector expenditure restraint the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been used as a means to procure social housing using private money, however sustainability within PFI housing projects has received little attention. This paper introduces a methodology for evaluating sustainability within PFI bids. Developed and tested during the procurement stage of a large PFI housing project in the North East of England, results suggest that the introduction of clear, transparent and robust evaluation criteria can enhance sustainability

The impact of contractor selection method on transaction costs: a review

The basic premise of transaction-cost theory is that the decision to outsource, rather than to undertake work in-house, is determined by the relative costs incurred in each of these forms of economic organization. In construction the "make or buy" decision invariably leads to a contract. Reducing the costs of entering into a contractual relationship (transaction costs) raises the value of production and is therefore desirable. Commonly applied methods of contractor selection may not minimise the costs of contracting. Research evidence suggests that although competitive tendering typically results in the lowest bidder winning the contract this may not represent the lowest project cost after completion. Multi-parameter and quantitative models for contractor selection have been developed to identify the best (or least risky) among bidders. A major area in which research is still needed is in investigating the impact of different methods of contractor selection on the costs of entering into a contract and the decision to outsource

Environmental, human health and socio-economic effects of cement powders: The multicriteria analysis as decisional methodology

The attention to sustainability-related issues has grown fast in recent decades. The experience gained with these themes reveals the importance of considering this topic in the construction industry, which represents an important sector throughout the world. This work consists on conducting a multicriteria analysis of four cement powders, with the objective of calculating and analysing the environmental, human health and socio-economic effects of their production processes. The economic, technical, environmental and safety performances of the examined powders result from official, both internal and public, documents prepared by the producers. The Analytic Hierarchy Process permitted to consider several indicators (i.e., environmental, human health related and socio-economic parameters) and to conduct comprehensive and unbiased analyses which gave the best, most sustainable cement powder. As assumed in this study, the contribution of each considered parameter to the overall sustainability has a different incidence, therefore the procedure could be used to support on-going sustainability efforts under different conditions. The results also prove that it is not appropriate to regard only one parameter to identify the ‘best’ cement powder, but several impact categories should be considered and analysed if there is an interest for pursuing different, often conflicting interests