Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Multi-objective optimization for improved project management: Current

status and future directions
Kai Guo a, Limao Zhang b, *
a
School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore
b
School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To realize project management improvement, many different objectives have to be considered simultaneously
Multi-objective optimization due to the nature of complexity and uncertainty in construction projects. Along with the rapid development of
Project management progressive technologies, solving the project management problem from the multi-objective optimization (MOO)
Systematic review
perspective has drawn a lot of attention and become a necessary trend. To better promote the adoption of MOO
Construction automation and digitalization
Future trends
for solving problems in the construction industry, the paper presents a systematic review under both sciento­
metric and qualitative analysis to understand the current state and discusses the future research trends of MOO
for project improvement. To begin with, a scientometric review is performed to explore the characteristics of
keywords, journals, and clusters based on 411 journal articles published in 1991-2020. It is found that there has
been an explosion of MOO-related papers, especially in the past 10 years. Then, a brief understanding of MOO is
provided, which analyses the key problems in the adoption of MOO for project improvement management.
Special concerns have been put on six hot research topics, where the MOO methods have been widely applied for
achieving better project performance, including (1) project planning and constructability, (2) prefabrication and
supply chain, (3) workplace safety and risk management, (4) construction automation and digitalization, (5)
structural health monitoring, and (6) emergency response and evacuation management. Based on the systematic
review, challenges of promoting wide adoption of MOO for better project improvement are identified, i.e., in­
compatibility with dynamic features, ambiguity of input-output relationship, and low interaction in the advance
project management. To address these challenges, three potential directions, adaptive optimization, interpretable
mapping and interactive optimization, are discussed.

1. Introduction
The aim of project management is to achieve better project perfor­
mance by making some changes in the construction projects, and a lot of
activities could be involved in the process, such as project planning,
design, and safety management [95,167]. The key of achieving project
performance improvement is to improve particular aspects of the target
project, i.e., to realize the project improvement through the optimiza­
tion of closely related influential factors that can contribute to the
desired project performance [39]. For example, the aim of project time
management is to make the project more efficient through the optimi­
zation of the project schedule [166], cost management is to keep the
project budget in control through the optimization of the consumption
of required resources for the project [15], and quality management is to
guarantee the production quality by optimizing the production activities
[100].
Traditionally, the optimization problems in construction projects are
often set as single-objective optimization. For example, the schedule was
set as the main objective in the study of Lee, et al. [98], in which a
discrete event simulation model was developed to optimize the pro­
duction schedule for modular construction projects. In the study of
Podolski and Sroka [140], the cost was set as the main goal, and a hybrid
approach with the integration of linear programming and metaheuristic-
based simulated annealing algorithm was proposed to optimize the cost.
Construction safety was regarded as the main objective in the study of
[130], in which a Monte Carlo simulation was developed to optimize the
resource allocation in the construction site to guarantee construction
safety. Though these studies focused on the optimization of one main
aspect for improving the project management, it should be noticed that
the project integration, i.e., elements of the project can be effectively

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kai004@e.ntu.edu.sg (K. Guo), zlm@hust.edu.cn (L. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104256
Received 11 December 2021; Received in revised form 26 February 2022; Accepted 6 April 2022
Available online 6 May 2022
0926-5805/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K. Guo and L. Zhang
coordinated, is fundamental to achieve the project improvement. That
is, factors in the construction project are closely related to each other,
and even one particular aspect is set as the main objective, other factors
are inevitably involved.
In fact, the construction project has the nature of complexity and
uncertainty. The project improvement tasks often involve many
different factors, and a conflicting relationship could even exist between
the factors. The project improvement related tasks, such as design,
scheduling, safety management, and others, are inherently character­
ized by solving the conflicts between those objectives to achieve better
performance. With the recognition of the importance of considering
different objectives simultaneously and the crucial role of the project
integration for the project performance, more and more researchers
began to investigate the project improvement from the perspective of
optimizing the desired multi-objectives at the same time, i.e., the multi-
objective optimization (MOO) perspective. Especially with the rapid
development of progressive technologies in the construction industry,
such as building information modeling (BIM), Internet of Things (IoT),
and the wide applications of various machine learning algorithms, a
large number of studies emerged in recent decades focusing on the
project improvement with the consideration of multi-objectives simul­
taneously. For instance, an evolutionary strategy based particle swarm
MOO model was proposed by Elbeltagi, et al. [45] for the optimization
of project schedule. Based on a genetic algorithm, a MOO model was
proposed to solve the problem of project scheduling under severe
weather conditions in the study of Senouci and Mubarak [153]. With the
integration of differential evolution algorithm, Cheng and Tran [35]
developed a MOO model to solve the problem of the time-cost utilization
and work-shift trade-off in construction projects. Along with the wide
applications of MOO in the project improvement area, it has been
proved that the incorporation of MOO is not only necessary but also
more effective, compared to single-objective improvement perspective,
in the project performance improvement, especially for the large-scale
construction projects [62].
Searching for the topic of MOO, it can be seen that more and more
attention is being paid to MOO problems in the construction industry. As
investigated by researchers, the exploitation of progressive technologies
in the construction industry provided a greater potential to achieve
project improvement from the MOO perspective [96,116]. To better
identify how the consideration of MOO can help improve the project
management, accordingly, scholars began to put efforts into reviewing
the MOO studies in the construction industry. However, very few studies
focus on the systematic review of MOO applications in the construction
industry, and currently found studies mainly focused on specific sub-
areas, such as the wind energy forecasting [105], pavement mainte­
nance and rehabilitation [32], or reinforced concrete structure [3].
These studies provided narrowed perspectives rather than general in­
sights of MOO in the construction industry. It should be noticed that
though different stages and topics in the construction area may have
their specific features, they are closely related to each other. A holistic
review investigating the MOO methods and applications from the
overall perspective for the construction industry could provide conclu­
sions and implications as mutual references between topics for better use
of MOO to improve the project management. Besides, a systematic re­
view will be able to provide a chance of better perceiving the opportu­
nities, challenges, limitations, and future directions of applying MOO in
the field.
To better make use of the rapid development of MOO methods to
improve the project performance, questions specifically investigated in
this research are: (1) What is the current situation of the applications of
MOO for the construction projects; (2) What are the typical areas in
construction industry particularly requiring the incorporation of MOO
for better project performance; (3) What are the main challenges hin­
dering the further wide applications of MOO for construction project
problems; (4) What are the prominent research trends of further pro­
moting the project performance improvement with the integration of
2
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
MOO methods. To answer these questions, a systematic review of the
MOO investigations in the project management area is conducted in this
research. Different from previous reviews that focused on particular
aspects of project management using MOO, the systematic review in this
research mainly contributes to three areas: (a) Discussing, from an
overall perspective, the necessity and advantages of incorporating MOO
to solve the project management problems; (b) Providing detailed
analysis covering the main topics in the construction industry with the
emphasis on their respective features and statuses of using MOO; (c)
Identifying the current challenges hindering the further widespread of
MOO and providing insightful views on the research trends overcoming
those challenges.
This research is performed as follows. Section 2 is to conduct an
analysis on scientometrics by searching the academic publications of
relevant topics. Section 3 is to investigate the characteristics and solving
process of MOO problems. Section 4 is to report the hot topics of MOO in
the project management field. Section 5 is to identify the current limi­
tations of MOO in the construction industry and to present future di­
rections. Conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2. Analysis of publications
MOO related papers within the construction industry domain are
retrieved to prepare the database for review. The following three criteria
are adopted to guide the search of peer-reviewed papers: (1) Scopus,
Web of Science (WOS), and PubMed are selected as the academic da­
tabases for retrieving the targeted publications; (2) The search period is
set from 1990 to 2020, where the concept of MOO began and have been
gradually adopted to solve the project improvement problems; (3)
Keywords in the searching process can be simply divided into two as­
pects: one is related to MOO, and another one is about the topic in the
construction industry. These two kinds of keywords are then combined
by Boolean operations. To be specific, the keyword searching rule is to
combine multi-objective optimization or multi-objective with the con­
struction project, project management, civil engineering, construction
management, or construction industry. To get a sense of the develop­
ment of MOO from a holistic perspective, including all different in­
dustries besides the construction area, the publications with just the
keywords multi-objective optimization are also retrieved from the
database, which are 45,150 papers in total. The document type is limited
to Articles, the language is English, and manual inspection is performed
to remove the duplications. As a result, 411 MOO related papers in the
construction project area are selected. Discussions are presented as
follows.
(1) An upward trend of the annual number of MOO related publi­
cations can be identified during 1990-2020, indicating that the
existence of multi-objectives in the construction problem has
drawn enough attention, and solving the project management
problem from the MOO perspective has become a hot topic at
present. As presented in Fig. 1, the number of publications on
MOO is increasing rapidly in the past decades. It can be noticed
that the applications of MOO in the project management area are
consistent with the increasing trend of the MOO applications.
Among the publications, 86.3% of the MOO studies (92.1% in the
project management field) are published after 2010. This rapid
increment of MOO related studies after 2010 may be caused by
the rapid development of competitive technologies. However, it
should be noticed that the application of MOO in the construction
fields is not increasing as fast as the application of MOO in other
fields. As presented, the MOO studies in other areas could reach
5,117, 5,165, 4,113 in the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, respec­
tively. Meanwhile, just 49, 57, and 58 studies in the project
management area focus on the MOO problems in the years 2019,
2020, and 2021, respectively. This does not mean that con­
struction projects do not require MOO methods to solve the
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

2020

MOO
MOO in construction area

2010

2000

1990
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 20 40 60 80 100
MOO MOO in construction area
Fig. 1. Number of publications of MOO and its applications in the construction area.

Fig. 2. Mapping of co-occurrence of keywords for the studies focusing on MOO in the construction industry.

3
K. Guo and L. Zhang
project management problems. Actually, for inherently complex
construction projects, many different objectives may have to be
involved in the project improvement problem. That is, investi­
gating and solving the related problems from the MOO perspec­
tives are still in great demand.
(2) The co-occurrence keyword analysis is performed by using the
Java-based scientific visualization tool, CiteSpace, as presented
in Fig. 2. Keywords are the core words or phrases to capture the
essence of papers. The size of font and node is directly pro­
portionated to the number of publications containing a certain
keyword. Besides the word optimization itself, it can be seen that
the most frequently displayed words are simulation, perfor­
mance, design, cost, modeling based optimization, and others. In
addition to the frequency, another metric term centrality can be
calculated to measure the role of the nodes in the knowledge
network. These mentioned words present relatively high cen­
trality values (0.42, 0.37, 0.31, 0.25, 0.21, respectively), which
indicate that they have more influence on other nodes in the
network. From the keyword map, roughly two groups can be
observed. One is more related to the methods used in the MOO
problems, including simulation, GA, particle swarm optimiza­
tion, sensitivity analysis, and modeling based optimization.
Another one is more related to the application fields, including
cost, project performance, design, transport, structural system,
bridge maintenance, damage detection, and evacuation.
(3) A timeline zone map of the keywords, presented in Fig. 3, pro­
vides a complementary view of the appearance of keywords of
MOO problems for the past two decades. The keywords demon­
strated in the figure indicate the time of their first appearance, the
size of the nodes indicates their frequency, and the purple circle
indicates that the topic has a relatively more important role. For
example, the keyword, genetic algorithm, is in the 2005 interval.
This indicates that the first appearance of the genetic algorithm is
in 2005. The large circle and the purple outline indicate that this
keyword has had a high frequency in the MOO studies since 2005,
and it has a relatively more important role. As presented in the
figure, the investigation of the project management in the con­
struction industry began with fundamental objectives, the risk,
Fig. 3. Appearance of keywords related to MOO problems in the construction industry.
4
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
cost, design, and management, which emerged from the period
2003 to 2008. From the timeline zone, it can be seen that the
studies of MOO in the construction area started along with the
applications of simulation, modeling, and algorithms. After that,
keywords, such as evacuation, damage detection, decision mak­
ing, logistics, life-cycle assessment, and prediction, gradually
came up as the subjects, which indicates that the investigation of
the MOO problems in the construction industry already covers a
wide range of topics.
3. Understanding of MOO
Optimization problems with more than one objective are referred to
as multi-objective optimization (MOO) problems. Normally, only one
single objective is involved and just one single optimal solution is gained
in the single-objective optimization problem, whereas a MOO task
considers several conflicting objectives simultaneously. In MOO, a set of
alternatives with different trade-offs called non-dominated solutions, or
Pareto front, is produced for the target problem. Due to the complexity
and special features, three critical aspects are particularly important for
the success of implementing MOO to solve problems, i.e., the MOO
problem analysis, building the fitting function for the MOO problem,
and making the final decision from the gained Pareto front. Detailed
analysis of these three steps is presented as follows.
3.1. Problem analysis
The problems that require the consideration of MOO can be found in
almost every field. In the finance field, the investment risk and return
were identified as two conflicting objectives, and a hybrid approach
with the integration of mixed-integer programming and NSGA-II was
developed to realize the MOO [59]. For the aerospace vehicle design, the
two conflicting objectives, minimization of the gross lift-off weight and
the maximization of the change in velocity, were identified, and a
Bayesian optimization approach integrating deep Gaussian processes
was proposed by Hebbal, et al. [69] to solve the MOO problem. To
promote collaborative learning, the desired improving objectives, inter-
homogeneity, intra-heterogeneity, and empathy between group
K. Guo and L. Zhang
members, were identified to be critical for the group formation, and a
genetic algorithm-based MOO approach was proposed by Miranda, et al.
[118] to find out the optimal trade-off solutions. As to the construction
industry, Sojobi and Liew [158] conducted a detailed analysis of the
modular prefabrication construction processes and accordingly identi­
fied the key factors undermining the benefits of prefabrication projects.
Based on the analysis and findings, they incorporated MOO methods to
improve the prefabrication process to realize sustainable and resilient
construction. Guo and Zhang [64] performed a detailed investigation of
the new metro line projects constructed in the center of large cities,
figured out the primary objectives and key factors, and established a
MOO-based approach to determine the optimal line alignment solution.
It can be seen that, for the project management problems, especially for
the construction projects, it is normal that the improvement of different
objectives is desired and often, a conflicting relationship exists between
them. That is, it is necessary to incorporate MOO to solve the problem.
Reviewing the MOO problem-solving studies, it is found that the
detailed problem analysis is an important step to implement the MOO
process, in which the accurate identification of the desired objectives
and the influential factors is performed. Normally, based on a proper
and detailed analysis of the target MOO problems, the first step in the
analysis of the problems is to identify the desired objectives. Then,
factors contributing to the objectives should be found out. Besides,
constraints may exist due to the circumstances of different MOO prob­
lems. Though the desired objectives involved in different problems
could be entirely different, the optimization goal could normally be
deduced to obtain the maximum or minimum value for those objectives.
In this way, the objective functions of MOO problems can be expressed
as Eqs. (1) to (4).
min/maxfm (x) m = 1, 2, …, M (1)
s.t.gj (x) ≥ 0 j = 1, 2, …, J (2)
hk (x) ≥ 0 k = 1, 2, …, K (3)
li ≤ xi ≤ ui i = 1, 2, …, n (4)
where M is the number of objectives, x is the n-dimensional decision
vector and y is the m-dimensional objective vector, gj(x) and hi represent
the constraints on the target MOO problem, j and k are the numbers of
the constraints, respectively. li and ui are used to represent the lower and
upper limits of the ith variable, respectively.
3.2. Fitting function determination
To solve optimization problems, the first step is to model the opti­
mization problem and transfer it into regular expressions. To achieve
this, it is required to define the objective space, the influential factor
space, and the decision space. Then, mapping the relationship between
the objectives and influential factors is the critical step for the success of
the MOO performance. Only based on proper relationship expressions
between objectives and influential factors, the meaningful optimal so­
lutions could be obtained. This mapping relationship is called the fitting
function. A proper fitting function is a prerequisite for the efficient and
accurate performance of the MOO. According to different problems, two
methods are commonly used to build the fitting functions. One is the
explicit function, i.e., explicit mathematical expressions are constructed
to express the relationship between the objectives and the influential
factors. Another one is the implicit function, i.e., to build the relation­
ship with the incorporation of machine learning algorithms and the
accordingly constructed meta-models.
3.2.1. Explicit functions
Building the explicit function is an effective way to construct the
relationship between the desired objectives and the influential factors.
Since an explicit relationship exists between the objectives and influ­
5
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
ential factors, the relationship functions are often expressed in mathe­
matical formulas for conducting the MOO process. Normally, the explicit
function can be abstractly expressed as in Eq. (5).
max/minyi = w1 f1 (x) + w2 f2 (x) + … + wn fn (x) (5)
where yi is the ith objective, fn(x) is the function of every influential
factor, and wn is the factors’ correspondent weight. The weight distri­
bution of different objectives is based on the preference of the decision
makers. If all objectives are regarded as equally important, the coeffi­
cient wn equals to 1.
Explicit functions are widely used in studies, where the relationships
between objectives and influential factors can be explicitly expressed.
Many problems in construction area could have explicit fitting functions
representing the relationships between objectives and influential fac­
tors. For example, Ren, et al. [146] defined the explicit functions for the
objectives and constraints of the MOO problems, i.e., the investment
cost, energy consumption, energy balance between demand and supply,
and the availability of generating units. Based on those math functions,
the MOO process was conducted to search for the optimal solutions for
the operation of the distributed energy systems. Similarly, Guo and
Zhang [64] constructed the mathematical relationships between the
objectives in the tunnel line alignment problem, the investment, head­
way, and comfortable magnitude, and their correspondent influential
factors, and conducted a MOO process based on it to realize the opti­
mization of the tunnel alignment. The advantage of the explicit function
is that it can efficiently build the relationship in an accurate way, which
can greatly improve efficiency and guarantee the reliability of the
optimization process. However, construction projects often have elusive
features with a high level of complexity, where explicit functions can
hardly be constructed. Therefore, relatively few studies can realize the
MOO by constructing explicit functions, and this is one of the reasons
hindering the wide applications of MOO for the improvement of con­
struction projects.
3.2.2. Implicit functions
Because of the complexity and uncertainty, the relationship between
the identified objectives and influential factors could be elusive and
difficult to be expressed in an explicit manner. However, without the
representative functions, the MOO process cannot be conducted to find
the optimal solutions. In recent decades, the rapid development of
computer-based simulation and machine learning algorithms makes this
challenging task possible. An implicit function, called meta-model, can
be constructed to represent the relationship, which is used to perform
the MOO process. Methods, including kriging, splines, Bayesian network
(BN), artificial neural networks (ANNs), support vector machines
(SVMs), random forest (RF), and light gradient boosting machine
(LightGBM) are often used to construct meta-models [200].
Due to the complexity nature in construction industry, algorithm-
based meta-models were widely adopted to solve problems for the
project management problems. By integrating ANNs, Es-Saidi, et al. [47]
constructed an efficient meta-model and applied the model to achieve
the optimization of the geometrical parameters of metal-dielectric
diffraction gratings. Guo and Zhang [65] incorporated Random Forest
to construct the meta-model, representing the relationship between the
evacuation evaluation objectives and the influential factors. The built
meta-model was used in a case study to conduct the MOO process, and
the validation analysis demonstrated that the constructed meta-model
can be reliable for the investigation of evacuation problems. Xu, et al.
[181] developed an ANN-based meta-model with the integration of
NSGA-II to search for the optimal strategies that can realize the energy-
saving aims for school buildings. Many similar studies have been done,
and it has been proved that algorithm-based meta-model could provide
accurate information about the relationships between desired objectives
and influential factors, and effectively enhance the quality of MOO
problem-solving for the construction projects [19].
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

3.3. Optimization and decision making Table 1

Applications of different decision approaches in the MOO problems.
The gained Pareto front from the MOO process often provides a set of Methods Application areas Decision References
optimal solutions. As presented in Fig. 4, not one single optimal solution rules
but a set of solutions is produced in the MOO process. The solutions on GA Risk allocation No [8,115]
the Pareto front are all regarded as the optimal solutions, and all points preference
along the Pareto front are mathematically equal and valid. None of them Building renovation A priori [13,25,28]
can be regarded as a better solution. However, normally only one of Schedule, cost management A priori [6,10,14]
SI Building renovation No [31,37,67,99]
these solutions can be selected as the final decision in practice. Thus, preference
there are at least two equally important tasks in MOO: (1) an optimi­ Design optimization A priori [80,111]
zation process for determining the Pareto optimal solutions and (2) a Resource and schedule A priori [38,44,45,54,145]
decision-making task for selecting the single most preferred solution optimization
ALO Route optimization A priori [185]
[23]. Based on the identified objectives and influential factors, the
Power equipment management A priori [172,176]
optimization task is to perform a searching process first to gain feasible Performance improvement No [85,124,147]
solutions. A fitness-based sorting process is conducted to obtain the non- preference
dominated solutions. This process is continued until it reaches conver­
gence on the optimization results, i.e., the gained non-dominated solu­
tions are not changing. The gained non-dominated solutions are have limited capabilities, collaborative behaviors could be sophisticated
regarded as the Pareto front. After gaining the Pareto front, decision and complex tasks can often be completed by collaboration among in­
rules are required from the decision-makers to determine the final dividuals. An SI-based algorithm, particle swarm optimization (PSO), is
optimal solution from the Pareto front. Methods of seeking the Pareto proposed based on the simulation of the bird and fish migration. PSO
front and the commonly used decision rules are introduced as follows. algorithm presents the advantage of simplicity, where the parameter
setting and adjustment are relatively easy. Accordingly, a high level of
3.3.1. Common optimization methods efficiency is demonstrated in the application of PSO for solving MOO
Many different methods have been developed to search the Pareto problems.
front for the MOO problems. Though different algorithms own different Inspired by the predation behaviors of ant lions and the interactions
searching mechanisms, the common goal is to find out the Pareto front. between ant lions and ants, an ant lion optimizer (ALO) is developed.
Among different methods, the three most commonly used methods are One of the most commonly used ALO algorithms is the multi-objective
introduced, i.e., genetic algorithm (GA), swarm intelligence (SI), and ant ant lion optimization (MOALO), proposed by Mirjalili [119]. Two spe­
lion optimizer (ALO) based methods. Table 1 presents examples of ap­ cial stages are included in the MOALO optimization processes, i.e., the
plications of typical methods for solving MOO problems. Discussions of larval stage and the adult stage. The larval stage is used for prey, and the
the three methods are briefly introduced below. adult stage is mainly responsible for the re-populating. A high level of
GA is one of the most commonly used MOO algorithms, inspired by diversity is guaranteed in the MOALO optimization by the leader se­
the laws of genetics and natural selection [45]. The fundamental rule in lection rule and archive maintenance techniques.
GAs is that populations with high adaptability to the environment have a
higher survival probability. The applications of GAs in MOO demon­ 3.3.2. Decision-making rules
strate that GAs have advantages of avoiding convergence to local As introduced, the optimization process can provide the optimal
extreme values, simplicity, and strong robustness, which make GAs solution set, Pareto front, where a certain number of equally optimal
become one of the most popular MOO solving methods. Many variations solutions are produced. To determine the final optimal solution, rules
are developed in GAs, and the differences of these variations mainly lie from the decision makers are required. The preference of users plays a
in the rules of fitness assignment, elitism, or the methods for critical role in the decision-making process. According to different
diversification. preference expressions, three decision rules are commonly used to
Swarm intelligence (SI) based optimization algorithms are developed choose the final optimal solution from the Pareto front, i.e., no prefer­
on the simulation of the collective behaviors of the populations. ence rule, a priori rule, and a posteriori rule. Fig. 5 presents the three
Compared to individual behaviors that are relatively simple and often commonly used rules, their specific features, and the frequently used
methods under the three rules, respectively. The most significant feature
between the three rules is the different expressions of preference to the
Pareto front objectives.
3.0
Dominated solutions
1) No preference rule
2.5
The MOO method can be identified as a no-preference method. A
2.0 neutral compromise solution is identified without preference informa­
tion, if the decision maker does not explicitly express any preference
information. That is, all objectives are regarded as equally important,
Y2

1.5
and the searching for the Pareto front and the final decision is unbiased.
Under this rule, the ideal point is often set as the reference point, and the
1.0 shortest solution from the ideal point, based on the Euclidean Distance,
is regarded as the final optimal solution. Since no particular preference
0.5 comes from the decision makers, the advantage of this decision rule is
that it owns a high computing efficiency. The disadvantage of this rule is
that it may produce an optimal solution that is less ideal for certain
0.0
0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35
conditions, especially when the circumstances are dynamically
changing.
Y1

Fig. 4. Pareto front and the dominated solutions.

2) A Priori rule

6
K. Guo and L. Zhang
Fig. 5. Three commonly used decision rules and their specific features.
A priori method requires that sufficient preference information
should be presented before the solution searching process. A priori rule
allows decision makers to specify preferences before conducting the
MOO process, which may be articulated in terms of goals or the relative
importance of different objectives. Parameters, including coefficients,
exponents, and constraint limits, that can be set to reflect decision-
maker preferences, will be expressed in the fitting functions to com­
plete the optimization process. This a priori preference dictated by the
decision maker, which can be regarded as constraints on the optimiza­
tion. Thus, most of the priori preferences are expressed in utility func­
tions defined in the fitting functions. Methods, including the weighted
global criterion method, lexicographic method, goal programming
method, bounded objective function method, and others, are often used
to perform the priori MOO calculations. The advantage of the priori rule
is that the optimization searching is tailored for the target problem
based on the specific preference of the decision makers. Thus, it could be
very efficient, and the solution fits the target problem very well. The
disadvantage of the priori rule is that premature convergence could
happen due to biased searching and some potential feasible optimal
solutions could be missed.
3) A Posteriori rule
A posteriori rule refers to the optimization process allowing decision
makers to express preference information after the solution searching
process. A posteriori rule is also referred as the generate-first-choose-
later approach. The posteriori method aims at producing all the Pareto
optimal solutions or a representative subset of the Pareto optimal solu­
tions. After gaining the set of Pareto optimal solutions, the decision
maker could determine the final optimal solution according to specific
rules and demands. The main difference of a posteriori rule from the
priori rule is that the preference of the decision makers is expressed after
obtaining all the feasible optimal solutions. That is, the searching pro­
cesses for gaining the Pareto front are unbiased, and the aim for the
searching in a posteriori rule is to find out all potential Pareto front
solutions to the maximum extent. Then, users make the final decision.
The advantage of a posteriori rule is that all potential optimal solutions
could be found out (unlikely to miss any possible optimal solution
compared to a priori rule and no preference rule), and the larger range of
optimal solutions may provide the decision makers with new ideas of
how the optimization of the objectives could be balanced. However, the
cost-effectiveness may be low. The searching process could be very time-
consuming, but the return of feasible optimal solutions may not be
increased.
Different decision-making rules may be incorporated in the
7
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
construction projects according to the concrete problems. For example,
the no preference rule was integrated into the study of Xu, et al. [182] to
solve the gas emission optimization problem for school buildings. It was
applied in the research of Khodaygan [90] to look for the optimal
tolerance design of compliant assemblies with the integration of Kriging
meta-model, NSGA-II, and Shannon’s Entropy algorithm. With the
adoption of the no preference rule, Khoramshokooh, et al. [91] devel­
oped a MOO approach to improve the hydraulic structure design, in
order to reduce the seepage flow through the foundation of diversion
dams and to enhance the dam efficiency. For the a priori rule, it was
incorporated in the study of Sanchez, et al. [151], where a weighted
MOO method was used to generate a set of non-inferior solutions that
could minimize the environmental impacts and building cost in the
component reusing problems. Similarly, Herrera-León, et al. [71]
developed a weighted MOO method, in which a preference rule in favor
of controlling the greenhouse gas emission over economic costs was pre-
determined in the algorithm search process for the water supply system
optimization in the mining industry. As introduced above, a set of
equally optimal solutions may not be helpful for solving construction
problems. Thus, the decision-making rule becomes an inevitable part of
the MOO problems in the construction industry, and currently, it is
found that rules, no preference rule and a priori rule, are the mainly used
rules in the construction area.
4. Research topics of MOO in project management
As introduced above, MOO has been adopted in the construction
industry to achieve project improvement for almost every aspect, due to
the complex nature of construction projects. An intrinsic complex rela­
tionship exists between the themes, such as cost, quality, productivity,
and schedule, which are the major concerns for construction projects.
This feature makes the project management own the nature of MOO. To
further investigate MOO in project management, six particular topics are
chosen, i.e., (1) project planning and constructability, (2) prefabrication
and supply chain, (3) workplace safety and risk management, (4) con­
struction automation and digitalization, (5) structural health moni­
toring, and (6) emergency response and evacuation management. These
topics cover the phases of the project management lifecycle. Topics,
project planning and constructability, prefabrication and supply chain,
and workplace safety and risk management, are more related to the
phases from design to construction. Topics, construction automation
and digitalization, structural health monitoring, and emergency
response and evacuation management, are more related to project
management from the operation and maintenance perspectives. Besides,
the topic selection is in accordance with the keywords reflected in the
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

publication analysis above. Among the selected topics, construction
digitalization and automation is the main trend of the construction in­
dustry 4.0, where multi-objectives have to be concerned to promote its
early realization. The planning and constructability are relevant to the
keywords of cost, design, quality. The prefabrication and supply chain is
related to transport, delivery, and quality. The topic of workplace safety
and risk management is related to the keywords of risk, damage detec­
tion, deformation. The theme of structural health monitoring is relevant
to the keywords of damage detection, bridge, and tunnel. The topic of
evacuation simulation and emergency response is reflected in the key­
words of emergency, evacuation, and natural disaster. Detailed in­
vestigations of MOO in the topics are presented as follows.
4.1. Project planning and constructability
Constructability is defined as the integration of construction
knowledge and experience for the achievement of better project per­
formance, including activities in the planning, design, construction,
operation, maintenance, and decommissioning phases [53]. Construct­
ability has a critical role for project success, and potential benefits from
improving the constructability urge the construction industry to
continuously learn and enhance the constructability of projects. In
recent years, along with the rapid development of BIM and related tools,
the studies for constructability improvement cover almost every aspect
of construction projects from building design, operation, and mainte­
nance, to building renovation and even project demolition, as presented
in Fig. 6 (a). To realize the constructability improvement, Fig. 6 (b) il­
lustrates the most commonly desired objectives and involved activities
for achieving these objectives in the early stage of construction projects.
As presented, in most cases, efficiency, quality and flexibility are the
three most important objectives pursued during the construction pro­
cess, and as is often the case in construction projects, conflicts may exist
between these objectives when they are required to be met simulta­
neously. For example, a shortened construction schedule may bring
down the investment but would reduce the project quality. Accordingly,
to achieve the improvement of the constructability, it becomes an
inevitable task to include the improvement of multi-objectives in the
projects. Thus, quite a number of approaches from the MOO perspective
to improve the constructability in the construction projects have been
explored.
Three stages and aspects, including feasibility, design, and procure­
ment, particularly play critical roles influencing the constructability of
construction projects [53,61]. Consequently, the studies for the con­
structability with the incorporation of MOO mainly focused on these
three aspects. Table 2 presents the example studies of MOO on the
constructability from these three aspects. A feasibility study evaluates a
project in terms of the strengths, weaknesses, resources, finances, and
how realistic a project is. A good feasibility study is a key to the success
of a project. Studies have been done on the MOO problems of the
feasibility studies. To enhance the feasibility of PPP projects, Feng, et al.
[49] developed a model, with the incorporation of GA, to balance the
risk-profit allocation between public and private sectors through the
concession adjustment in PPP projects. RazaviAlavi and AbouRizk [143]
presented a GA-based framework that can enable users to analyze the
information of the construction plan and construction site layout, and
simultaneously optimize them in an integrated model. Alireza, et al. [8]
integrated GA into a model to promote the collaboration between
partners, in which the risk allocation between private and public sectors
was optimized by looking for the trade-off solutions of minimizing the
construction time and cost and maximizing the project productivity. It
can be seen that factors, the cost, productivity, schedule and risk allo­
cation between partners, are most commonly set as the objectives
investigated to study and enhance the feasibility of projects.
A proper design plays a crucial role in the overall project perfor­
mance. To achieve the optimization of the design to improve the project
constructability, multi-objectives are inevitably included. Accordingly,
studies of design optimization from the MOO perspectives have drawn a
lot of attention. By comparing three bio-inspired optimization algo­
rithms, i.e., artificial bee colony, symbiotic organism search and particle
swarm, with the traditional mathematical methods on the layout design
optimization of construction sites, Prayogo, et al. [142] suggested that
the symbiotic organisms search algorithm performed the best among the
three algorithms. Similarly, Muhammad, et al. [125] and Prayogo
(2020) proposed symbiotic organism search algorithms and virtual
reality-based approaches for the MOO problem solving in the con­
struction site layout design. The results from the studies proved the
reliability of MOO approaches in handling construction site planning
problems. To achieve the design optimization, Xiaowei, et al. [178] first
studied the benefits of design optimization and then investigated the
impact of the cost, fairness concern behaviors of different negotiators on

(a) (b)

Quality Efficiency Cost Design Fabrication Logistics BIM

Fig. 6. Research hotspot in the project planning and constructability area ((a) reproduced from Kim, et al. [92] and (b) reproduced from Bank [17]).

8
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

Table 2 the engineering design optimization and the project performance. To

Studies of MOO in the area of project planning optimization. optimize the water conveyance structure, Su [162] established a
Aim Objectives Optimization Decision References mathematical model based on the three-dimensional finite element
methods process method and put efforts into the investigation of how to reduce the
Feasibility Cost, cooling PSO Weighted [122] required material the optimization of the temperature and structural
efficiency, energy selection stresses and other design parameters. With the help of advanced tech­
consumption, co2 nologies, BIM, virtual reality and machine learning algorithms, different
emission design related objectives, such as the interior geometry design of
Capital structure, Monte Carlo Weighted [192]
profit allocation, simulation, GA selection
housing units, lifting device on construction efficiency, and the design
risk allocation from optimization of prefabricated residential houses, could be studied to
Pareto improve the project design, where the common feature is that MOO had
Schedule, Fuzzy sets, Hamming [2] become an integral part to achieve the project improvement aim
required credit, evolutionary distance
[72,101].
cost algorithm
Schedule, cost, MOO from Reference [22] As one of the most critical factors, procurement directly relates to the
longevity, Ratio Analysis Point constructability of construction projects. High-quality products, a spe­
environmental cific budget, a tight schedule, and other factors are critical factors
purpose influencing the success of the procurement process of the construction
Cost, productivity Fuzzy sets Weighted [112]
selection
projects, and accordingly, MOO has been adopted to improve the pro­
from curement. From the perspectives of bid preparation, execution, and bid
Pareto analysis and assignment, Caplice and Sheffi [27] investigated procure­
Design Engineering NSGA-II No [178] ment optimization of transportation projects. A GA-based construction
design, fairness preference
logistics planning model was developed by Said and El-Rayes [149] to
concern,
negotiation optimize the storage layout plans of construction sites and simulta­
Cost, reinforcing NSGA-II Weighted [89] neously improve material procurement. With the integration of two-
bar congestion selection stage stochastic programming, Paterakis, et al. [139] developed a
Cost, safety, GA, Analytic Weighted [186] value-at-risk metric based model to optimize the reserve procurement
environmental Hierarchy selection
for wind generation projects. Shabani-Naeeni and Ghasemy Yaghin
impact Process
Limit support PSO-NN Reference [50] [154] performed an in-depth investigation of the interplay between the
pressure, point data visibility and procurement risks in the procurement planning
maximum ground problems, and an NSGA-II based multi-objective procurement transport
surface
panning model was developed to determine the cross-functional policy
deformation
Safety, Mixed linear Weighted [73] for the purchasing and transportation under risks, to realize the pro­
operability, programming, selection curement optimization. Similar studies have been done by other re­
reliability, from searchers, and it has been proved that the incorporation of MOO is an
environmental Pareto effective way to achieve the improvement of the procurement processes.
impacts, cost
Resources, NSGA-II Weighted [136]
environmental selection 4.2. Prefabrication and supply chain
impact, schedule from
Pareto Prefabrication, also called modular construction, refers to the prac­
Travel distance, GA Reference [137]
tice of assembling structure components in a separate factory or
cost, safety Point
Energy ANN, NSGA-II Weighted [156] manufacturing site other than the construction site where the structure
consumption, selection should be located. The supply chain is responsible for the management
indoor thermal from of delivering specific products or services from the producer to the
comfort, cost Pareto customer, i.e., transporting the prefabricated components to the con­
Distance between Fussy sets, PSO Reference [179]
high-risk Point
struction sites. As the rapid development of prefabrication and supply
facilities, cost chain transforms the construction industry, a lot of studies focus on the
Cost, orientation, NSGA-II Reference [195] improvement and optimization of their performance. In the manage­
glazing material Point ment of prefabrication and supply chain, decision-makers often face
Cost, energy Tchebycheff Weighted [12]
multi-objectives, and sometimes conflicts occur between them. Fig. 7
consumption, programming selection
customer demand presents the basic process and the three most important issues in the
Procurement Work GA Weighted [150] prefabrication and supply chain area, i.e., the quality in the production
interruptions, selection stage, the transportation stage, and the installation stage. To successfully
time interval, cost from complete the prefabrication and supply chain tasks, commonly con­
Pareto
Profit allocation, NSGA-III, Least Weighted [104]
cerning aims include guaranteeing the quality, minimizing the total cost
cost present value of selection (from production to installation), and minimizing delivery time of
revenue products to the customer, and these aims are often required to be met
Required credit, NSGA-II, Weighted [43] simultaneously. Besides, the prefabrication projects have huge impacts
profit allocation, Pareto selection
on the sustainable design of construction projects, which play an
duration evolutionary
algorithm important role in satisfying the climate demand. It has been studied that
Efficiency, load GA Weighted [139] prefabrication projects have a positive impact on reducing the energy
recovery, cost selection consumption of buildings, but the management of the design, quality,
Lead times, Fuzzy sets Weighted [163] installation of the prefabrication, and the efficiency of the supply chain
machine yield, selection
customer
can hardly be improved without the incorporation of MOO in­
demand, cost vestigations [30,194].
As introduced above, three specific issues, i.e., quality, trans­
portation, and installation, are the three most essential concerns, and

9
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

Production sites Transportation risk

Quality Transportation Installation

Fig. 7. Critical aspects of prefabrication and supply chain.

accordingly, they cause researchers’ attention and a lot of related studies
have been done, as presented in Table 3. The quality of the products
from prefabrication directly relates to the sustainable development of
this industry. The safety and efficiency of the transportation and
installation are key factors influencing the success of the projects. The
improvement and optimization of these aspects are inseparable from the
introduction of MOO methods. As studied by Sojobi and Liew [158],
important factors, such as mechanical properties, ductility, corrosion
resistance, and cost-effectiveness, should be considered for steel utili­
zation, which was the fundamental factor influencing the efficiency of
the modular prefabricated construction. To guarantee the continuity of
the construction process, Liu and Tao [106] proposed a MOO model for
the optimization of the purchasing, inventory, and delivery from the
perspective of construction partners in a construction supply chain. As
presented by Naji, et al. [127], the installation of prefabrication build­
ings affected the building performance, and an evolutionary algorithm-

Table 3
Studies of MOO in the area of prefabrication and supply chain.
Aim Objectives Optimization methods Decision process References

Quality Cost, quality, environmental impact, architectural Multi-attribute utility theory Weighted [33]
impact selection
Cost, productivity, profit Fuzzy sets Weighted [133]
selection
Cost, productivity PSO, self-adaptive imperialist competitive algorithm, Weighted [84,97,138,152,168]
priority queues selection
Cost, profit, defect rates Fuzzy sets, reverse logistics Weighted [11]
selection
Transportation Cost, service level, resource utilization GA Weighted [9]
selection
Productivity, environmental impact Bi-objective nonlinear programming, interactive Weighted [55]
programming selection
Cost, environmental impact Genetic Taguchi algorithm Weighted [79]
selection
Installation Productivity, cost, co2 emission ACO, Taguchi algorithm Weighted [202]
selection
Environmental impact, customer demand, cost GA, PSO Weighted [160]
selection
Customer demand, cost, profit Fuzzy sets, GA Weighted [159]
selection
Product performance, cost Taguchi algorithm Weighted [158]
selection
Product performance, thermal comfort degree, cost Evolutionary algorithm, simulation Weighted [127]
selection

10
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

based MOO approach was developed to achieve a better understanding
of the installation for the more sustainable buildings. Furthermore,
problems, such as a large number of stakeholders, including designers,
clients, contractors, transporters, involved in the supply chains of pre­
fabricated building projects and the complex distributed supply chain
models, make the prefabrication building construction projects impos­
sible to be managed without considering multi-stage cooperation and
objectives simultaneously [108,191].
4.3. Workplace safety and risk management
Effective safety management is regarded as one of the most serious
problems for construction projects, especially for large-scale projects. In
the construction industry, there have been significant reductions in the
number and the rate of injury over the past decades. However, the
construction industry remains one of the highest-risk industries.
Reviewing the current studies on safety management, three particular
issues caused researchers’ interest, i.e., safety perception, safety
demeanor, and safety enhancement, as presented in Table 4. Safety
perception includes the topics of the safety plan, safety monitoring, and
safety assessment. Safety demeanor relates more to behaviors, attitudes,
culture, and beliefs from both the individual and collective perspectives.
Safety enhancement covers issues of measures that mitigate the risk and
improve the safety performance, and methods of timely detecting the
risks and realizing better risk management.
Because of its extraordinary importance, a lot of studies focused on
safety perception problems. It has been proved that the planning and
designing phase plays an important role in identifying and mitigating
potential risks. For safety planning, Yi and Langford [188] proposed a
model to perceive the potential risks and make re-schedule for activities
to avoid the risks. Different objectives, such as proper assessment of the
risk levels, re-schedule of related activities, the cost for the re-schedule,
and affected productivity, had to be included in the consideration for the
safety planning. Among the objectives, proper and accurate risk
assessment is critical to quantify, control, and mitigate hazardous risks
for construction projects, and different criteria, such as their severity,
exposure, frequency, and imposed costs in addition to risk mitigation
preparation, should be taken into account [75,81]. An efficient safety
perception with the consideration of those objectives sets the stage for
improving risk management.
Due to the high injury rate, the safety of workers on the construction
sites attracts a lot of attention, and it has been studied that the safety
demeanor, including that from both individuals and collectives, exerts a
significant influence on the safety performance. Construction workers
could have high mental stress when facing a working environment of
high risks. How to improve the safety performance could be an
extremely challenging task, since a lot of factors are involved, and highly
complex relationships exist between them. For individual workers, their
safety compliance, safety participation, self-efficacy, resilience, and
other potential physical and emotional states all could influence the
safety performance [175]. Among these factors, self-efficacy and resil­
ience may positively affect safety participation, but optimism may be
negatively associated with safety participation [68]. Meanwhile, the
safety climate of the company has a direct influence on individual
behaviors and safety performance. The safety-related policies, pieces of
training, collective beliefs and shared perceptions, education and
training, clear right and duty, all have complicated and interrelated
relationships on the individuals and the safety performance [48,193].
These factors all have to be considered to perform an accurate safety
evaluation, and it can hardly achieve safety performance optimization if
not taking the complexity of these factors into account.
Consequently, how to enhance construction safety is one of the most
essential tasks for both the academia and practice fields. A wide range of
safety measures is taken as part of the safety management programs in
construction companies. However, it is a demanding task to achieve. For
example, due to the fierce market competition, the companies may be
lack of commitment to safety management and improvement. Besides,
the safety issues cannot be well managed if lack of awareness of the risk
or with misconceptions with the construction projects [164]. Especially,
the safety management of accidents entails the balance between risk
prevention and cost, reducing the risk potential to a maximum extent
but not causing too much financial burden. Accordingly, the cost-benefit
analysis methods were investigated by researchers to find the best so­
lutions to realize the risk reduction in a cost-effective way [74]. More
importantly, as studied by Karakhan, et al. [86], and Panwar and Jha
[135], not only many factors were involved in the safety performance
improvement, but also a complex and interrelated connection existed
between the safety, quality, cost, schedule, and other construction ac­
tivities. That is, finding the best trade-off solutions for the project
improvement, including the safety issues, should be indispensable, i.e.,
it is necessary to incorporate the MOO solving methods.
4.4. Construction automation and digitalization
Nowadays, digitization and automation are transforming the con­
struction field in almost every aspect, and there is still an increasing
trend implementing digital technologies and automation in the con­
struction industry. It has been believed that construction digitalization
and automation are deemed essential with the advent of the 4.0 indus­
trial revolution [114]. Accordingly, there is a significant process of
research in adopting technologies to promote construction digitalization
and automation, including BIM, augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR),
laser scanning, robotics, 3D printing, unmanned aerial vehicles (UVAs),
analytics software, blockchain, digital twins, internet of things (IoT),
and machine learning solutions, as presented in Table 5. Significant
benefits are proved with the process of construction digitalization and
automation. For example, digitalization could greatly promote accurate
information collection and communication, and automation solutions
can assist, collaborate, or even replace human labor. Thus, digitalization
and automation can result in high productivity, a safer working envi­
ronment, and also savings concerning raw material consumption, ma­
terial recycling, and reduction of construction and demolition waste, etc.
[46].
However, challenges hindering the rapid development of digitali­
zation and automation still exist. Many of the digitalization and auto­
mation solutions are still conceptual or in early development stages, not
mature enough to be adopted in products. Some digitalization and
automation solutions involve different phases of the project, leading to

Table 4
Safety topics and related multi-objectives in them.
Topic Subject Related objectives Reference

Safety perception Safety plan Risk quantity estimation, activity re-schedule, cost, productivity, severity [81,188]
Safety monitoring Monitoring efficacy, cost, production quality [171]
Safety assessment Accuracy, failure rate, reliability, [174]
Safety demeanor Individual behavior Unsafe behaviors, attitudes, habits, fatigue, construction personnel, [102,128]
Safety climate Group beliefs, attitudes, shared perceptions, safety polices [113,134]
Safety enhancement Safety measure Risk mitigation, cost, safety awareness enhancement, safety perception accuracy [189,196,198]
Safety performance Frequency, severity, cost, productivity [120]
Accident management Cost-benefit balance, Risk identification, injury severity, risk prediction, emergency response plan [5,201]

11
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

Table 5 decision support applications for the health monitoring of bridge pro­
Issues in the development of construction automation and digitalization. jects. Tan, et al. [165] proposed multiple linear regression-based ap­
Aspects Technologies Topics, development, and References proaches for the health monitoring of tunnel projects, which could
challenges realize the leakage detection, prediction, and prevention tasks. Ma, et al.
Construction BIM, AR/VR, Skeptical attitude on the [4,21,46] [110] integrated the multi-layered system theory into a health moni­
digitalization UVAs effect, trust issue, cost, toring approach to monitor and evaluate the airport asphalt pavement
lack of partner heath condition under realistic random aircraft loads. Reviewing the
Block chain, IoT, Effectively combining [46,187] studies, it can be found that the effectiveness of structural health
cloud computing, digital technologies, the
collaboration between
monitoring basically required different objectives, as summarized in
different departments, Table 6, for all kinds of projects. Naturally, MOO has become an integral
validation of the part of the improvement of structural health monitoring problems.
technologies The data acquisition for health monitoring most relies on a variety of
BIM, AR, cloud Lack of expertise, [56,66,77]
sensors, and the optimization of sensor placement plays a critical role in
computing technology alignment with
the needs, processes and the area of structural health monitoring. As presented in Table 6, a va­
objectives, lack of effective riety of construction projects, including bridges, tunnels, airport, and
assessment tools other public buildings, requires the utility of sensors to collect data for
Construction 3D printing and Reluctant attitude, [141,144] health monitoring [60,109,157,177]. For the sensor placement prob­
automation assembly robots, complexity, and diversity
BIM of construction sites,
lems, factors like coverage, quality, cost, and accuracy should be
diffusion of knowledge considered, and the complex relationship between these potential ob­
Geographic Skeptical attitude, high [42,87,123] jectives entails the incorporation of MOO methods. Consequently, a
information initial capital investment, variety of algorithms have been put into the sensor deployment in­
system, BIM, AR/ site-related challenge,
vestigations. Yang [183] proposed a GA-based algorithm to optimize the
VR untrained workforce
sensor placement. Based on EA, Shahra and Wu [155], Kaveh and
Eslamlou [88], and Xu, et al. [180], developed models to find the
the construction procedure re-design, and different stakeholders could optimal locations for sensor placement. Though the incorporation of
also be involved in the processes. This might increase the economic risks MOO helped optimize the sensor placement to a great extent, challenges
of the projects, and it also affects the on-site acceptance. For example, exist to further promote structural health monitoring, such as advanced
the concept of self-supported curtain wall installation system and ro­ sensors with high sensitivity and range, the effectiveness of sensors in
botic assembly system would inevitably change the traditional con­ different environments, and effective sensor configurations for different
struction procedures, and could lead to more difficult on-site adoptions structures [131,157]. In order to accomplish these goals, it can be
[24]. Besides, the applications of digital and automated solutions are foreseen that the utility of MOO is still essential.
associated with incremental costs, from acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of the advanced technologies and machines. Some auto­
4.6. Emergency response and evacuation management
mated machines or robots may consume a lot of energy during their
operation, and some automated machines are bulky equipment
The capability to emergency accidents is always one of the most
requiring a special working environment, and thus additional land space
for their operation is needed.
Table 6
In sum, though it is promising that digitalization and automation can
Studies of MOO in the area of structural health monitoring.
promote the construction industry to a new level, it should be noticed
that digitalization and automation require changes in the overall culture Phases Objectives Optimization Decision References
methods process
of the organizations, and the process inevitably influences the workers,
employers, other stakeholders, and even external populations. Besides, Bridges Placement, sensor EA Weighted [103]
numbers, accuracy selection
the robustness, adaptability, and accessibility should be assessed in the
Coverage, cost, EA, NSGA-II, PSO Weighted [76,183]
context of sustainability, these indicators are inextricably bound up with delay, location, selection
the environmental, economic, and social performance of the digital and accuracy
automation development. The complexity during the process itself is a Arrival time, risk, Bayesian Weighted [41]
MOO problem, such as the balance between productivity improvement fuel cost updating, Finite selection
element method,
and raised economic risks. As might be expected, the involvement of GA
MOO will be an essential part of the process of construction digitaliza­ Tunnels Displacement, GA, PSO, MOEA Weighted [78,93]
tion and automation. accuracy, cost selection
Robustness of the PSO Weighted [199]
strain-displacement selection
4.5. Structural health monitoring
transfer
relationship, the
Infrastructure systems, such as bridges and tunnels, and buildings accuracy of
like museums and hospitals are considered to be valuable assets for reconstruction
society, and structural health monitoring is a fundamental aspect for the displacement
Buildings Gap size, Simulation, Reference [34]
sustainable development of these construction projects. Damages, complexity value of NSGA-II point
deterioration, and accidents like collapse may happen to the project nodes
affecting thousands of people [161]. Tasks of structural health moni­ Independence, Information Reference [26]
toring often include damage detection, condition evaluation, and risk damage sensitivity, fusion algorithm point
modal strain energy
prediction, and structural health monitoring could also relate to other
Monotonicity, Empirical mode, Weighted [18]
critical issues, such as project rehabilitation, maintenance, and emer­ trendability, and auto-associative selection
gency repair [94]. Due to its critical role, MOO studies have been done prognosability Kernel regression,
on the subject of structural health monitoring for different projects. binary
Fraser, et al. [51] developed an automated functional system with the differential
evolution
integration of real-time data collection, transmission, data mining, and

12
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

important topics in construction projects. Natural disasters, such as
earthquakes and hurricanes, and man-made accidents, such as train
crashes and the terrorist attack at metro stations, often cause serious
damage or even casualties. Even though all possible preventative mea­
sures have been studied and applied, different kinds of disasters and
accidents cannot be completely avoided. Thus, an efficient and effective
emergency response measure is the prerequisite to reduce the potential
risks to the minimum extent.
Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and wildfires, may
happen, and the disasters often affect a large number of residents, and
accordingly, researchers put efforts into the investigation of emergence
management dealing with natural disasters, as presented in Table 7. The
pre- and post-disaster decisions, especially the daily supplies to the
affected people, are critical to facilitate efficient relief operations and
keep the stability [121]. To investigate the emergency response mea­
sures, objectives, to maximize the supply coverage, minimize the cost,
and minimize the difference in the satisfaction rates between residents,
are often regarded as the main concerns for efficient and successful
emergency management [58,121]. Decision makers also have to make
logistics schedules, which could save time for delivery and trans­
portation costs but could still make a reasonable distribution according
to the requirements at different demand points [29,126]. To deal with
fire-related accidents, a multi-objective and multi-stage emergency
management system was developed, including functions of fire acci­
dents monitoring, elimination, prediction and pre-warning, early
disposal, and emergency response for different stages of the potential
fire disasters [107]. As multi-objectives, multi-stages, and multi-criteria
are often taken into consideration, MOO methods become essential tools
for emergency management in response to disasters [57,83].
As one of the most important parts of the response measures for
emergency events, evacuation has drawn a lot of attention from re­
searchers. It has been studied that conflicts commonly exist among
different desired objectives for the safety management of evacuation
events. The too-long evacuation time and high flow density could lead to
evacuation risks [36,170]. However, the evacuation time and density
are related to each other in a very complex way, and the conflicting
nature between them, i.e., evacuating as many people as possible in a
short time may have to cause high flow density, may hardly be elimi­
nated [65]. As presented in Fig. 8, a 3D model was built for the simu­
lation of evacuation for a real metro station in the study of Guo and
Zhang [65], in which the MOO method was integrated to find the
optimal trade-off solution for objectives of evacuation time, flow density
and structure optimization cost. In the model, a heatmap of the evacu­
ation flow can was presented, and accordingly, the key positions of
potentially congested areas can be identified, as shown in Fig. 8 (c) and
(d), respectively. Then, with the MOO solving algorithm, the optimal
trade-off solution from the Pareto front and the evacuation improvement
effectiveness with the optimization can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 8
(e) and (f), respectively. Similar studies had been done by other re­
searchers to solve the MOO problems for improving evacuation events.
Objectives of minimizing the evacuation time and the possible hazards
related to the spaced-based geographical conditions, were considered
for the safety management during evacuation in the study of [190]. A
GA based evacuation optimization approach was proposed by Abdel­
ghany, et al. [1] to search for the optimal evacuation plans for visitors,
and the results proved that the approach could provide better solutions
compared to conventional evacuation plans without the integration of
MOO methods. The incorporation of MOO, combined with simulation
methods, has been studied by many researchers, and the findings
demonstrate that the incorporation of MOO into the evacuation man­
agement can achieve an improved and balanced efficiency and safety of
evacuation operations.
5. Challenges and future directions in MOO for the project
management
Although there is an upward trend of incorporating MOO perspec­
tives into project improvement, challenges still exist. As presented in
Fig. 9, three main challenges are that (i) most of current MOO studies
have not integrated the dynamic features, (ii) a certain ambiguity in the
MOO process may harm the interpretability and provability of the
optimization results, and (iii) the low interaction in the MOO process
potentially leads to biased optimization output. The challenges, together
with potential directions of further promoting MOO for the project
improvement, are discussed below.
5.1. Challenge 1: Incompatibility with dynamic features
MOO has been adopted in the construction field to achieve project
management improvement by optimizing multi-objectives with the
consideration of the conflicting relationship between those objectives.
Due to its complex nature, the incorporation of MOO is not only
necessary but also proved as an effective method to realize the project
improvement, as analyzed above. However, along with the complexity,
high uncertainty is also the distinguishing feature for projects in the
construction industry. As investigated in the studies of Deb, et al. [40],
the objectives, constraints, and relevant parameters could constantly
change with time in most cases. Zhang and Lin The gained optimal so­
lutions may not be accurate and ideal, since the circumstances have
changed but the optimization process is based on the static data gained
before. That is, the major issue of current MOO studies lies in that the
optimization process greatly relies on static and historical information

Table 7
Studies of MOO in the area of emergency response.
Accident cause Accident Objectives Optimization methods Decision process References

Natural Earthquakes Loss of life, evacuation routes, time, broadcasting range EA Weighted [132]
accidents selection
Demand coverage, available aeromedical helicopters EA Weighted [82]
selection
Floods Reservoir cleanup time, number of quality violations, downstream PSO Weighted [148]
worst water quality selection
Casualties, fatalities, average ill-health of population, waiting NSGA-II, Pareto archived evolution Weighted [126]
time strategy selection
Fires Safety, social disruption, cost EA Weighted [57]
selection
Time, transportation cost, resource demand GA Weighted [29]
selection
Man-made Operation Travel time, risk Simulation, EA, ACO Weighted [52,203]
accidents errors selection
Demand, cost, satisfaction rate difference PSO Reference point [121]
Terrorist Cost, relief supplies NSGA-II, PSO Reference point [58]
attacks

13
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

(b)
4 3 2 1

7 Platform level 6 5
10 9 8

(c ) (d)
7
No guiding strategy
S1 guiding strategy
S2 guiding strategy
6 S0 guiding strategy
Congestion standard

Density (unit/m2)
4

-1
0 100 200 300 400 500
Evacuation time (s)

(a) (e) (f)

Fig. 8. Application of MOO for the evacuation events and obtained results (sub-figures (b), (c) (d) are reproduced from Guo and Zhang [65], and (e) and (f) from Guo
and Zhang [63]).

Fig. 9. Challenges and directions for future MOO investigation in project management (sub-figure b is reproduced from Azodi, et al. [16] and sub-figure in In­
compatibility is reproduced from Zhang, et al. [197]).

[169]. In another word, the dynamic feature in the construction projects would lead the MOO processes to ignore the timely varied constraints
should be considered within the MOO processes, to gain the dynamic and parameters, where the truly fitted Pareto front could be missed.
optimal solutions that can well fit the timely changing environment. The Besides, the MOO processes may already require a lot of computing
inadequate consideration of the dynamic feature in construction projects resources. Then, it becomes a challenging task to incorporate dynamic

14
K. Guo and L. Zhang
feature into the MOO.
5.2. Challenge 2: Ambiguity of input-output relationship in the project
management
The rapid development of machine learning algorithms greatly
promotes the wide applications of MOO in various fields, including the
construction industry, due to its capability of depicting the relationship
between desired objectives and the influential factors. However, as
analyzed above, the application of MOO in the construction area has
fallen behind quite a lot from the application of MOO in other areas. One
of the critical reasons is that the great complexity in the construction
projects results in a great elusiveness, which leads to an ambiguous
relationship between the objectives and influent factors. This relation­
ship ambiguity is still the major challenge hindering the wide applica­
tion of MOO. For example, as in the safety improvement of construction
projects, factors, such as the group beliefs, policies, individual habits,
attitudes, and onsite behaviors, have a significant influence on each
other, but the relationship could be too complicated to be explicitly
expressed. In addition, along with entering construction industry 4.0,
challenges exist, such as the problems of collaboration between dis­
similar systems, lack of uniform standards, network security caused by
the integration of the physical and digital world, and it will be quite a
demanding task to disentangle their relationship and make them work
smoothly to promote the industry development and project management
[7]. Currently, the incorporation of algorithms is used as the main tool to
build the meta-mode representing the complex relationships, as intro­
duced above. However, a certain opacity exists in the algorithm appli­
cation process. As presented in Fig. 10, the accuracy of the model could
be improved along with the sophistication, but high sophistication in­
dicates that decision makers are unclear what is happening in the pro­
cess, and biased searching process and results could be produced in the
opaque process [129]. In another word, though the incorporation of
algorithms can help solve the MOO problems by building meta-models,
the complexity is still the most significant feature for construction pro­
jects. Zhang and Lin [205] indicated that prediction uncertainties and
errors from the established meta-models should be considered in MOO.
The ambiguity between the desired objectives and influential factors and
the opacity in the algorithms are great challenges to further promote the
MOO application.
Fig. 10. Trade-off relationship between the accuracy and interpretability of algorithms (reproduced from Nesvijevskaia, et al. [129]).
15
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
5.3. Challenge 3: Low interaction in the advanced project management
As introduced above, though the rapid development of modern
technologies, 3D models, simulation tools and algorithms, promotes
MOO problem solving, challenges exist with the project management
tasks. One great challenge is the lack of deep involvement of decision
makers. Though the advanced technologies greatly improve the project
management efficiency through digitalization and automation, the role
of human labor as the strategic decision maker is still one of the most
critical factors influencing the project improvement [70]. However,
decision makers currently have relatively limited participation in the
MOO processes for project improvement. In most cases, only global
preference information is provided by the decision maker for choosing
the final optimal solution. In the no preference rule, equal weight for
every objective could be regarded as the preference information. In the
priori rule, preference information is provided to conduct the searching
process and will not be adjusted until the final decision is done. In the
posteriori rule, a piece of global preference information is provided only
when the searching process is done. No matter which rules, the opti­
mization searching process is evasive to the decision maker. This low
participation of decision makers in the optimization process keeps users
away from the potential of learning new knowledge about the target
problem, which could prevent decision makers from adjusting the
preference information timely, if the optimization circumstance varies,
to gain the best optimal solution [117].
5.4. Direction 1: Adaptive optimization for dynamic features
The theme of dynamic multi-objective optimization (DMOO) is
emerging quickly in recent years as a major concern for the MOO
problems causing a lot of concern [204]. The concept, adaptive multi-
objective optimization, is developed to incorporate the dynamic
feature into the MOO process. Adaptive optimization refers to the
optimization processes that could use the data collected during its so­
lution searching processes to update the optimization parameters and
improve the optimization performance [173]. In the traditional opti­
mization, the optimization process does not include the newly gained
information. On the contrary, the adaptive optimization recognizes that
the environment could be changing and conditions could vary over time,
and accordingly, contingency strategies are developed to define the
circumstance under which each of the strategies could be implemented
K. Guo and L. Zhang
[184]. The optimization results, with and without adaptive, could lead
to different results. For example, as presented in Fig. 11, two objectives,
y1 and y2, are desired, and a constraint, fulfilling the standards, exists for
the optimization. After performing the optimization, an optimal solution
is selected, as in the figure. It can be noticed that objective y1 is slightly
over the standard as in Fig. 11 (a). The reason could be that the two
objectives are regarded as equally important, and the final optimal so­
lution is selected from the Pareto front by an searching process with pre-
determined rule. Different from the searching with non-adaptive opti­
mization, the adaptive optimization, during the searching process,
considers the situation that the objective y1 has not been optimized
within the standard and the objective y2 has been optimized to a great
level. Then, this newly gained information can be absorbed into the
searching process, and an adaptive Pareto front and optimal solution,
harming the objective y2 to some extent and optimizing the objective y1
into the standard if possible, will be produced. Though researchers put
efforts on the incorporation of dynamic features into MOO processes, it
has to be acknowledged that the investigations and applications of
adaptive optimization for solving DMOO problems have not been
rapidly developed as they should be. Adaptive optimization is still in the
exploratory stage, and further investigation of how to incorporate
adaptive optimization into the MOO problems could transform project
improvement for the construction industry.
5.5. Direction 2: Interpretable mapping for the input-output relationship
under complexity
As discussed, deep learning models stand for a new learning para­
digm in AI and machine learning. Even though it may take more effort to
build a deep learning model than a machine learning one, more so­
phisticated deep learning algorithms have a promising effect on the
accuracy improvement of the constructed models [206]. Thus, it could
be a promising way to use deep learning models to improve the accuracy
in the MOO problem solving for the construction industry. However, as
mentioned, accuracy is not the only critical issue. Interpretability is also
critical but often hard to be achieved in the current models. An inter­
pretable model is essential because interpretability could promote
confidence and trust in the constructed model. It would be unwise for
decision makers to adopt a model that is uninterpretable, which could
lead to biased prediction as discussed above. By contrast, enhanced
interpretability can help to improve model performance and extends the
knowledge that decision makers can gain from the model [20].
Fig. 11. Optimization results: (a) with and (b) without adaptive rules.
16
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
Enhancing the interpretability of the models would become a necessity
to guarantee the accuracy and efficacy of the MOO problem solving. In
fact, methods have been developed to understand the model, such as the
search for Evidence Counterfactuals, SHAP, LIME, and other explanation
tools. Below is an example of applying SHAP to explain the
XGBoost-based model. As presented in Fig. 12, the SHAP explainer could
provide the relationship between each factor and the model output
(positive, negative, or complex), and it can also provide the information
of the impact of the variation of each factor on the model output. Due to
the ambiguity in the relationship, enhanced interpretability of the MOO
processes will become an essential part for promoting the accuracy, ef­
ficiency and wide application of MOO in the construction projects.
5.6. Direction 3: Interactive optimization
To strengthen the role of the participation of decision makers, the
human-in-the-loop (HITL) based interactive optimization could be a
promising direction. In the HITL based interactive optimization, along
with the searching algorithm iteration, the decision maker progressively
provides preference information during every iteration until the most
preferred solution can be found. Instead of mathematical convergence
that is often used as a stopping criterion in the MOO processes, psy­
chological convergence is often emphasized in interactive optimization.
In another word, the optimization process is only terminated when the
decision maker is confident that the most preferred solution is available.
The alternating stages of the optimization searching and decision mak­
ing processes create an interactive environment for finding the most
preferred solution. The decision maker should participate actively in this
procedure. One of the great advantages of the interactive optimization is
that decision makers can learn new knowledge from the optimization
iterations, to find the most preferred solution among the currently
produced solutions, and also be able to give indications for finding better
solutions in the next optimization iteration. More advanced than adap­
tive optimization, where global preference is provided and the
computing algorithms play the role of identifying the dynamic changing
condition, interactive optimization involves the decision maker in the
searching processes. The timely updating of knowledge from decision
maker guarantees the best suitable and optimal solution. The active
participation of decision makers in the optimization process can not only
improve the user experience to a great extent but also serves as the
prerequisite for dealing with dynamically varying circumstances and
avoiding biased optimization outputs.
K. Guo and L. Zhang
Fig. 12. Model interpretation based on SHAP analysis: (a) waterfall explanation; (b) beeswarm explanation. Note: Waterfall is commonly used to perform the
sensitivity analysis for the additive regression model, while beeswarm is commonly used to perform sensitivity analysis for the non-additive model.
6. Conclusions
The rapid development of progressive technologies provides oppor­
tunities to effectively achieve project improvement for complex con­
struction projects from the MOO perspective. Compared to the
traditional single-objective optimization, the incorporation of MOO not
only fulfills the requirements of considering the complexity and conflict
between the desired multi-objectives but also be able to provide optimal
solutions to realize a better project performance improvement. Due to
the complex nature of construction projects, MOO has been applied to
solve project improvement for almost every aspect of the construction
industry. The integration of MOO into the construction industry has
transformed project management. As reviewed above, MOO has already
been applied to almost every aspect of the construction industry for
better project management. However, very few studies currently make
attempts to conduct a holistic review of the situation of MOO applica­
tions in the construction industry, and accordingly, a knowledge gap is
created that even though the necessity and advantages of MOO have
been widely recognized, there is a lack of systematic summary about the
procedures and experiences of using MOO to improve the project per­
formance, which leads to the fact that MOO has not been widely applied
as expected in the construction area.
This research conducts a systematic review to gain a better under­
standing of how MOO could help the project improvement problems.
Important findings from this research could contribute to the further
promotion of widespread use of MOO to achieve better project perfor­
mance. For one thing, the holistic review provides valuable experiences
of using MOO for the activities in the construction area. A mature pro­
cedure of applying MOO is concluded, i.e., the process of a detailed
problem analysis, fitting function (explicit or implicit) determination,
and the decision-making rule (no preference, a priori, and a posteriori).
Besides, challenges are identified. Difficulties, including the in­
compatibility with the dynamic features, the ambiguity of the rela­
tionship between desired objectives and influential factors, and low
interaction during the optimization process, become the major chal­
lenges hindering the further development of MOO in the construction
industry. In addition, insightful views are provided in this research that
can be regarded as promising trends to overcome those challenges.
Adaptive optimization mechanism is proposed to solve the in­
compatibility, deep learning models are suggested to enhance the
interpretability, and HITL-based interactive optimization is recom­
mended to adequately involve the experts and improve the user expe­
rience, in order to deal with dynamically varying circumstances and
17
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
avoid biased optimization outputs.
However, the application of MOO in the construction fields still has
fallen behind, if compared to other industries. As analyzed, challenges
exist for solving the project improvement problems from MOO per­
spectives, i.e., the difficulty of incorporating dynamic features into the
MOO process, the ambiguity in the input-output relationship, and low
interaction from decision-makers in the MOO solving process. Accord­
ingly, three directions are identified particularly for the construction
project improvement, requiring in-depth investigations of how to use
MOO to promote the project management, i.e., the adaptive optimiza­
tion, interpretable mapping for the input-output relationship, and
interactive optimization strategies. The high complexity nature of con­
struction projects determines that not only high uncertainty but even a
conflict would normally exist for the project management, which in­
dicates that the application of MOO for the project improvement should
be an indispensable tool.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We declare that the manuscript has not been submitted to, nor is
under review at, another journal or other publishing venue. All authors
have participated in (a) conception and design, or analysis and inter­
pretation of the data; (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for
important intellectual content; and (c) approval of the final version. The
authors have no affiliation with any organization with a direct or indi­
rect financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the manuscript
Acknowledgment
The Start-Up Grant at Huazhong University of Science and Tech­
nology is acknowledged for its financial support of this research. The 1st
author is grateful to Nanyang Technological University, Singapore for
his Ph.D. research scholarship.
References
[1] A. Abdelghany, K. Abdelghany, H. Mahmassani, W. Alhalabi, Modeling
framework for optimal evacuation of large-scale crowded pedestrian facilities,
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 237 (3) (2014) 1105–1118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2014.02.054.
[2] A. Afshar, H. Fathi, Fuzzy multi-objective optimization of finance-based
scheduling for construction projects with uncertainties in cost, Eng. Optim. 41
(11) (2009) 1063–1080, https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150902943004.
[3] H. Afshari, W. Hare, S. Tesfamariam, Constrained multi-objective optimization
algorithms: review and comparison with application in reinforced concrete
K. Guo and L. Zhang
structures, Appl. Soft Comput. 83 (2019), 105631, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2019.105631.
[4] D. Aghimien, C. Aigbavboa, A. Oke, W. Thwala, P. Moripe, Digitalization of
construction organisations–a case for digital partnering, Int. J. Constr. Manag.
(2020) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1745134.
[5] A. Ajayi, L. Oyedele, J.M.D. Delgado, L. Akanbi, M. Bilal, O. Akinade, O. Olawale,
Big data platform for health and safety accident prediction, World J. Sci. Technol.
Sustain. Dev. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-05-2018-0042.
[6] C. Akcay, S. Iikyildiz, Multi-objective optimization of time-cost-quality in
construction projects using genetic algorithm, Rev. Construcción 19 (3) (2020)
335–346, https://doi.org/10.7764/rdlc.19.3.335-346.
[7] W.S. Alaloul, M.S. Liew, N.A.W.A. Zawawi, B.S. Mohammed, U.M. Raza, M.I.
Bin Othman, M. Latheef, D. Bayu Endrayana, B.Y. Zulaikha, Industry revolution
IR 4.0: future opportunities and challenges in construction industry, in: MATEC
Web of Conferences 203, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/
201820302010.
[8] V. Alireza, Y. Mohammadreza, R.M. Zin, N. Yahaya, N.M. Noor, An enhanced
multi-objective optimization approach for risk allocation in public–private
partnership projects: a case study of Malaysia, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 41 (2) (2014)
164–177, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0342.
[9] F. Altiparmak, M. Gen, L. Lin, T. Paksoy, A genetic algorithm approach for multi-
objective optimization of supply chain networks, Comput. Ind. Eng. 51 (1) (2006)
196–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2006.07.011.
[10] M.A. Alzarrad, G.P. Moynihan, M.T. Hatamleh, S. Song, Fuzzy multicriteria
decision-making model for time-cost-risk trade-off optimization in construction
projects, Adv. Civil Eng. 2019 (2019) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/
7852301.
[11] S.H. Amin, G. Zhang, An integrated model for closed-loop supply chain
configuration and supplier selection: Multi-objective approach, Expert Syst. Appl.
39 (8) (2012) 6782–6791, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.12.056.
[12] E. Asadi, M.G. da Silva, C.H. Antunes, L. Dias, Multi-objective optimization for
building retrofit strategies: a model and an application, Energy Build. 44 (2012)
81–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.10.016.
[13] E. Asadi, M.G. da Silva, C.H. Antunes, L. Dias, L. Glicksman, Multi-objective
optimization for building retrofit: a model using genetic algorithm and artificial
neural network and an application, Energy Build. 81 (2014) 444–456, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.009.
[14] B. Ashuri, M. Tavakolan, Fuzzy enabled hybrid genetic algorithm–particle swarm
optimization approach to solve TCRO problems in construction project planning,
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (9) (2012) 1065–1074, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)co.1943-7862.0000513.
[15] S. Azimi, R. Rahmani, M. Fateh-Rad, Investment cost optimization for industrial
project portfolios using technology mining, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 138
(JAN) (2019) 243–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.011.
[16] C.B. Azodi, J. Tang, S.H. Shiu, Opening the black box: interpretable machine
learning for geneticists, Trends Genet. 36 (6) (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tig.2020.03.005.
[17] A.d. Bank, Procurement Review: Guidance Note on Procurement, 2018 isbn: 978-
92-9261-221-4.
[18] P. Baraldi, G. Bonfanti, E. Zio, Differential evolution-based multi-objective
optimization for the definition of a health indicator for fault diagnostics and
prognostics, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 102 (2018) 382–400, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.09.013.
[19] S.A.I. Bellary, A. Husain, A. Samad, Effectiveness of meta-models for multi-
objective optimization of centrifugal impeller, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 28 (12)
(2014) 4947–4957, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-014-1116-0.
[20] U. Bhatt, P. Ravikumar, J.M.F. Moura, Building human-machine trust via
interpretability, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
vol. 33, 2019, pp. 9919–9920, https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019919.
[21] D. Boyd, A critical inquiry into the hyperreality of digitalization in construction,
Constr. Manag. Econ. (2021) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01446193.2021.1904515.
[22] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, F. Peldschus, Z. Turskis, Multi-objective
decision-making for road design, Transport 23 (3) (2008) 183–193, https://doi.
org/10.3846/1648-4142.2008.23.183-193.
[23] E.K. Burke, G. Kendall, Search Methodologies || Multi-objective Optimization,
Chapter 15, 2014, pp. 403–449, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6940-7_15.
[24] S. Cai, Z. Ma, M.J. Skibniewski, S. Bao, Construction automation and robotics for
high-rise buildings over the past decades: a comprehensive review, Adv. Eng.
Inform. 42 (2019) 100989, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.100989.
[25] V. Canellidis, J. Giannatsis, V. Dedoussis, Genetic-algorithm-based multi-
objective optimization of the build orientation in stereolithography, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 45 (7) (2009) 714–730, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-
2006-y.
[26] X. Cao, J. Chen, Q. Xu, J. Li, A distance coefficient-multi objective information
fusion algorithm for optimal sensor placement in structural health monitoring,
Adv. Struct. Eng. 24 (4) (2020) 718–732, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1369433220964375.
[27] C. Caplice, Y. Sheffi, Optimization-based procurement for transportation services,
J. Bus. Logist. 24 (2) (2003) 109–128, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-
1592.2003.tb00048.x.
[28] S. Carlucci, G. Cattarin, F. Causone, L. Pagliano, Multi-objective optimization of a
nearly zero-energy building based on thermal and visual discomfort minimization
using a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II), Energy Build. 104
(2015) 378–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.064.
18
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
[29] F.-S. Chang, J.-S. Wu, C.-N. Lee, H.-C. Shen, Greedy-search-based multi-objective
genetic algorithm for emergency logistics scheduling, Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (6)
(2014) 2947–2956, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.026.
[30] Y. Chang, X. Li, M. Eric, L. Zhang, Z. Huang, R. Robert, Unlocking the green
opportunity for prefabricated buildings and construction in China, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 139 (2018) 259–261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.08.025.
[31] F.P. Chantrelle, H. Lahmidi, W. Keilholz, M.E. Mankibi, P. Michel, Development
of a multicriteria tool for optimizing the renovation of buildings, Appl. Energy 88
(4) (2011) 1386–1394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.002.
[32] W. Chen, M. Zheng, Multi-objective optimization for pavement maintenance and
rehabilitation decision-making: A critical review and future directions, Autom.
Constr. 130 (2021) 103840, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103840.
[33] Y. Chen, G.E. Okudan, D.R. Riley, Decision support for construction method
selection in concrete buildings: Prefabrication adoption and optimization, Autom.
Constr. 19 (6) (2010) 665–675, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.011.
[34] Z. Chen, R. Guo, Z. Lin, T. Peng, X. Peng, A data-driven health monitoring method
using multiobjective optimization and stacked autoencoder based health
indicator, IEEE Trans. Indus. Informat. 17 (9) (2021) 6379–6389, https://doi.
org/10.1109/tii.2020.2999323.
[35] M.-Y. Cheng, D.-H. Tran, Opposition-based multiple objective differential
evolution (OMODE) for optimizing work shift schedules, Autom. Constr. 55
(2015) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.021.
[36] Z. Cheng, J. Lu, Y. Zhao, Pedestrian evacuation risk assessment of subway station
under large-scale sport activity, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (11) (2020)
3844.
[37] C.-K. Chiu, Y.-F. Lin, Multi-objective decision-making supporting system of
maintenance strategies for deteriorating reinforced concrete buildings, Autom.
Constr. 39 (2014) 15–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.11.005.
[38] Y. Cui, Z. Geng, Q. Zhu, Y. Han, Multi-objective optimization methods and
application in energy saving, Energy 125 (2017) 681–704, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.174.
[39] B. Dasovi, M. Gali, U. Klanek, A survey on integration of optimization and project
management tools for sustainable construction scheduling, Sustainability 12
(2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083405.
[40] K. Deb, U.B. Rao, S. Karthik, Dynamic multi-objective optimization and decision-
making using modified NSGA-II: A case study on hydro-thermal power
scheduling, in: International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion
Optimization, Springer, 2007, pp. 803–817, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-
70928-2_60.
[41] A. Decò, D.M. Frangopol, Real-time risk of ship structures integrating structural
health monitoring data: application to multi-objective optimal ship routing,
Ocean Eng. 96 (2015) 312–329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2014.12.020.
[42] J.M.D. Delgado, L. Oyedele, A. Ajayi, L. Akanbi, O. Akinade, M. Bilal, H. Owolabi,
Robotics and automated systems in construction: understanding industry-specific
challenges for adoption, J. Build. Eng. 26 (2019), 100868, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100868.
[43] M.S. El-Abbasy, A. Elazouni, T. Zayed, Finance-based scheduling multi-objective
optimization: Benchmarking of evolutionary algorithms, Autom. Constr. 120
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103392.
[44] M.S. El-Abbasy, A. Elazouni, T. Zayed, Generic scheduling optimization model for
multiple construction projects, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 31 (4) (2017) 04017003,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000659.
[45] E. Elbeltagi, M. Ammar, H. Sanad, M. Kassab, Overall multiobjective optimization
of construction projects scheduling using particle swarm, Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manag. 23 (3) (2016) 265–282, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-11-2014-0135.
[46] F. Elghaish, S. Matarneh, S. Talebi, M. Kagioglou, M.R. Hosseini, S. Abrishami,
Toward digitalization in the construction industry with immersive and drones
technologies: a critical literature review, Smart Sustain. Built Environ. (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-06-2020-0077.
[47] S. Es-Saidi, S. Blaize, D. Macías, Meta-model-based multi-objective optimization
for robust color reproduction using hybrid diffraction gratings, Opt. Express 28
(3) (2020) 3388–3400, https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.28.003388.
[48] M. Fargnoli, M. Lombardi, Preliminary human safety assessment (PHSA) for the
improvement of the behavioral aspects of safety climate in the construction
industry, Buildings 9 (3) (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9030069.
[49] K. Feng, S. Wang, N. Li, C. Wu, W. Xiong, Balancing public and private interests
through optimization of concession agreement design for user-pay Ppp projects,
J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 24 (2) (2018) 116–129, https://doi.org/10.3846/
jcem.2018.455.
[50] L. Feng, L. Zhang, Reliability-based multi-objective optimization in tunneling
alignment under uncertainty, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 63 (6) (2021)
3007–3025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-021-02846-x.
[51] M. Fraser, A. Elgamal, X. He, J.P. Conte, Sensor network for structural health
monitoring of a highway bridge, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (1) (2010) 11–24,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000005.
[52] W.-M. Gai, Y.-F. Deng, Z.-A. Jiang, J. Li, Y. Du, Multi-objective evacuation routing
optimization for toxic cloud releases, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 159 (2017) 58–68,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.10.021.
[53] J.A. Gambatese, J.B. Pocock, P.S. Dunston, Constructability concepts and
practice, Am. Soc. Civil Eng. (2007), https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784408957.
[54] T. Ganesan, I. Elamvazuthi, K.Z.K. Shaari, P. Vasant, Swarm intelligence and
gravitational search algorithm for multi-objective optimization of synthesis gas
production, Appl. Energy 103 (2013) 368–374, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.09.059.
K. Guo and L. Zhang
[55] K. Garg, D. Kannan, A. Diabat, P.C. Jha, A multi-criteria optimization approach to
manage environmental issues in closed loop supply chain network design,
J. Clean. Prod. 100 (2015) 297–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.02.075.
[56] Y.T. Gebretekle, D.W. Kamau, M. Raoufi, A.R. Fayek, Digitalization opportunities
road mapping tool (DORMT©): a framework to assess digitalization opportunities
in construction organizations, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 99 (999) (2021) 1–12, https://doi.
org/10.1139/cjce-2020-0762.
[57] P.S. Georgiadou, I.A. Papazoglou, C.T. Kiranoudis, N.C. Markatos, Multi-objective
evolutionary emergency response optimization for major accidents, J. Hazard.
Mater. 178 (1-3) (2010) 792–803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2010.02.010.
[58] P. Ghasemi, K. Khalili-Damghani, A. Hafezalkotob, S. Raissi, Uncertain multi-
objective multi-commodity multi-period multi-vehicle location-allocation model
for earthquake evacuation planning, Appl. Math. Comput. 350 (2019) 105–132,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2018.12.061.
[59] J. Goldkamp, M. Dehghanimohammadabadi, Evolutionary multi-objective
optimization for multivariate pairs trading, Expert Syst. Appl. 135 (2019)
113–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.046.
[60] J. Gómez, J.R. Casas, S. Villalba, Structural health monitoring with distributed
optical fiber sensors of tunnel lining affected by nearby construction activity,
Autom. Constr. 117 (2020), 103261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2020.103261.
[61] A. Griffith, A.C. Sidwell, Development of constructability concepts, principles and
practices, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 4 (4) (1997) 295–310, https://doi.org/
10.1046/j.1365-232X.1997.t01-1-00003.x.
[62] C. Guo, Study on optimization of construction management of large project, in:
2017 International Conference on Innovations in Economic Management and
Social Science (IEMSS 2017), Atlantis Press, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2991/
iemss-17.2017.247.
[63] K. Guo, L. Zhang, Adaptive multi-objective optimization for emergency
evacuation at metro stations, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 219 (2022), 108210, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.108210.
[64] K. Guo, L. Zhang, Multi-objective optimization in tunnel line alignment under
uncertainty, Autom. Constr. 122 (2021) 103504.
[65] K. Guo, L. Zhang, Simulation-based passenger evacuation optimization in metro
stations considering multi-objectives, Autom. Constr. 133 (2022) 104010.
[66] T.S. Guray, B. Kismet, Applicability of a digitalization model based on augmented
reality for building construction education in architecture, Constr. Innov. (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-07-2021-0136.
[67] M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Siren, A multi-stage optimization method for cost-
optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in line with the EPBD-recast
2010, Energy Build. 56 (2013) 189–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2012.08.023.
[68] C. He, G. Jia, B. Mccabe, Y. Chen, J. Sun, Impact of psychological capital on
construction worker safety behavior: communication competence as a mediator,
J. Saf. Res. 71 (2019) 231–241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.09.007.
[69] A. Hebbal, L. Brevault, M. Balesdent, E.-G. Talbi, N. Melab, Multi-objective
optimization using deep gaussian processes: application to aerospace vehicle
design, in: AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019, p. 1973, https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2019-1973.
[70] M. Hermann, T. Pentek, B. Otto, Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios, in:
2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE,
2016, pp. 3928–3937, https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.488.
[71] S. Herrera-León, F.A. Lucay, L.A. Cisternas, A. Kraslawski, Applying a multi-
objective optimization approach in designing water supply systems for mining
industries. The case of Chile, J. Clean. Prod. 210 (2019) 994–1004, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.081.
[72] S.A. Hosseini, R. Yazdani, A. de la Fuente, Multi-objective interior design
optimization method based on sustainability concepts for post-disaster temporary
housing units, Build. Environ. 173 (2020), 106742, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2020.106742.
[73] A. Hugo, P. Rutter, S. Pistikopoulos, A. Amorelli, G. Zoia, Hydrogen infrastructure
strategic planning using multi-objective optimization, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 30
(15) (2005) 1523–1534, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.04.017.
[74] E. Ikpe, F. Hammon, D. Oloke, Cost-benefit analysis for accident prevention in
construction projects, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (8) (2012) 991–998, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000496.
[75] E. Ilbahar, A. Karaşan, S. Cebi, C. Kahraman, A novel approach to risk assessment
for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy
inference system, Saf. Sci. 103 (2018) 124–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2017.10.025.
[76] M. Iqbal, M. Naeem, A. Anpalagan, N.N. Qadri, M. Imran, Multi-objective
optimization in sensor networks: optimization classification, applications and
solution approaches, Comput. Netw. 99 (2016) 134–161, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.comnet.2016.01.015.
[77] Q.K. Jahanger, J. Louis, D. Trejo, C. Pestana, Potential influencing factors related
to digitalization of construction-phase information management by project
owners, J. Manag. Eng. 37 (3) (2021) 04021010, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000903.
[78] M. Jahangiri, B. Ahmadi-Nedushan, Structural damage identification using
MOPSO and MOEA/D multi-objective evolutionary optimization algorithms,
J. Ferdowsi Civil Eng. 30 (1) (2016), https://doi.org/10.22067/civil.
v1i30.53204.
[79] R. Jamshidi, S.M.T. Fatemi Ghomi, B. Karimi, Multi-objective green supply chain
optimization with a new hybrid memetic algorithm using the Taguchi method,
19
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
Sci. Iran. 19 (6) (2012) 1876–1886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scient.2012.07.002.
[80] M. Janga Reddy, D. Nagesh Kumar, An efficient multi-objective optimization
algorithm based on swarm intelligence for engineering design, Eng. Optim. 39 (1)
(2007) 49–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150600930493.
[81] O.A. Jannadi, S. Almishari, Risk assessment in construction, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 129 (5) (2003) 492–500, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2003)129:5(492).
[82] P.R. Jenkins, B.J. Lunday, M.J. Robbins, Robust, multi-objective optimization for
the military medical evacuation location-allocation problem, Omega 97 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.07.004.
[83] G.-J. Jiang, H.-X. Chen, H.-H. Sun, M. Yazdi, A. Nedjati, K.A. Adesina, An
improved multi-criteria emergency decision-making method in environmental
disasters, Soft. Comput. 25 (15) (2021) 10351–10379, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00500-021-05826-x.
[84] R.S. Kadadevaramath, J.C.H. Chen, B. Latha Shankar, K. Rameshkumar,
Application of particle swarm intelligence algorithms in supply chain network
architecture optimization, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (11) (2012) 10160–10176,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.116.
[85] G. Kanimozhi, H. Kumar, Modeling of solar cell under different conditions by Ant
Lion Optimizer with LambertW function, Appl. Soft Comput. 71 (2018) 141–151,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.06.025.
[86] A.A. Karakhan, S. Rajendran, J. Gambatese, C. Nnaji, Measuring and evaluating
safety maturity of construction contractors: multicriteria decision-making
approach, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 144 (7) (2018) 04018054, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001503.
[87] S. Karimi, I. Iordanova, Integration of BIM and GIS for construction automation, a
systematic literature review (SLR) combining bibliometric and qualitative
analysis, Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. (2021) 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11831-021-09545-2.
[88] A. Kaveh, A.D. Eslamlou, An efficient two-stage method for optimal sensor
placement using graph-theoretical partitioning and evolutionary algorithms,
Struct. Control. Health Monit. 26 (4) (2019), e2325, https://doi.org/10.1002/
stc.2325.
[89] A. Kaveh, M. Kalateh-Ahani, M. Fahimi-Farzam, Constructability optimal design
of reinforced concrete retaining walls using a multi-objective genetic algorithm,
Struct. Eng. Mech. 47 (2) (2013) 227–245, https://doi.org/10.12989/
sem.2013.47.2.227.
[90] S. Khodaygan, Meta-model based multi-objective optimisation method for
computer-aided tolerance design of compliant assemblies, Int. J. Comput. Integr.
Manuf. 32 (1) (2019) 27–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2018.1543953.
[91] N. Khoramshokooh, M. Veiskarami, M.R. Nikoo, S.P. Roshandeh, Multi-objective
hydraulic optimization of diversion dam’s cut-off, Water Resour. Manag. 32 (11)
(2018) 3723–3736, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2015-4.
[92] K.P. Kim, R. Freda, T.H.D. Nguyen, Building information modelling feasibility
study for building surveying, Sustainability 12 (11) (2020) 4791, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su12114791.
[93] S. Kim, S.-A. Kim, Design optimization of noise barrier tunnels through
component reuse: minimization of costs and CO2 emissions using multi-objective
genetic algorithm, J. Clean. Prod. 298 (2021), 126697, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2021.126697.
[94] J. Ko, Y.Q. Ni, Technology developments in structural health monitoring of large-
scale bridges, Eng. Struct. 27 (12) (2005) 1715–1725, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2005.02.021.
[95] J. Larsson, L. Larsson, Integration, application and importance of collaboration in
sustainable project management, Sustainability 12 (2) (2020) 585, https://doi.
org/10.3390/su12020585.
[96] M. Laszczyk, P.B. Myszkowski, Survey of quality measures for multi-objective
optimization: construction of complementary set of multi-objective quality
measures, Swarm Evol. Comput. 48 (2019) 109–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
swevo.2019.04.001.
[97] B. Latha Shankar, S. Basavarajappa, J.C.H. Chen, R.S. Kadadevaramath, Location
and allocation decisions for multi-echelon supply chain network – a multi-
objective evolutionary approach, Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (2) (2013) 551–562,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.065.
[98] J. Lee, M. Park, H.-S. Lee, H. Hyun, Classification of modular building
construction projects based on schedule-driven approach, J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
145 (5) (2019) 04019031, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001656.
[99] H. Lei, R. Wang, T. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Zha, A multi-objective co-evolutionary
algorithm for energy-efficient scheduling on a green data center, Comput. Oper.
Res. 75 (2016) 103–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.05.014.
[100] D. Li, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, X. Chen, C. Cao, Impact of quality management on green
innovation, J. Clean. Prod. 170 (2018) 462–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.09.158.
[101] N. Liang, M. Yu, Research on design optimization of prefabricated residential
houses based on BIM technology, Sci. Program. 2021 (2021), https://doi.org/
10.1155/2021/1422680.
[102] P. Liao, L. Jiang, B. Liu, C. Chen, D. Fang, P. Rao, M. Zhang, A cognitive
perspective on the safety communication factors that affect worker behavior,
J. Build. Construct. Plann. Res. 2 (03) (2014) 183, https://doi.org/10.4236/
jbcpr.2014.23017.
[103] J.-F. Lin, Y.-L. Xu, S. Zhan, Experimental investigation on multi-objective multi-
type sensor optimal placement for structural damage detection, Struct. Health
Monit. 18 (3) (2018) 882–901, https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921718785182.
K. Guo and L. Zhang
[104] F. Liu, J. Liu, X. Yan, Solving the asymmetry multi-objective optimization
problem in PPPs under LPVR mechanism by bi-level programing, Symmetry 12
(10) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12101667.
[105] H. Liu, Y. Li, Z. Duan, C. Chen, A review on multi-objective optimization
framework in wind energy forecasting techniques and applications, Energy
Convers. Manag. 224 (2020) 113324.
[106] Q. Liu, Z. Tao, A multi-objective optimization model for the purchasing and
inventory in a three-echelon construction supply chain, Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput.
362 (2015) 245–253, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47241-5_20.
[107] X. Liu, Q. Zhang, X. Xu, Petrochemical plant multi-objective and multi-stage fire
emergency management technology system based on the fire risk prediction,
Proc. Eng. 62 (2013) 1104–1111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.167.
[108] L. Luo, G.Q. Shen, G. Xu, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, Stakeholder-associated supply chain
risks and their interactions in a prefabricated building project in Hong Kong,
J. Manag. Eng. 35 (2) (2019) 94–107, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000675.
[109] J. Lv, Z. Hu, G. Ren, C. Zhang, Y. Liu, Research on new FBG displacement sensor
and its application in Beijing Daxing airport project, Optik 178 (2019) 146–155,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2018.09.117.
[110] X. Ma, Z. Dong, F. Chen, H. Xiang, C. Cao, J. Sun, Airport asphalt pavement health
monitoring system for mechanical model updating and distress evaluation under
realistic random aircraft loads, Constr. Build. Mater. 226 (Nov.30) (2019)
227–237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.174.
[111] J.R. Manne, Swarm intelligence for multi-objective optimization in engineering
design, in: Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Artificial Intelligence,
Computer Simulation, and Human-Computer Interaction, IGI Global, 2019,
pp. 180–194, isbn: 1522573682.
[112] J.T. Margolis, K.M. Sullivan, S.J. Mason, M. Magagnotti, A multi-objective
optimization model for designing resilient supply chain networks, Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 204 (2018) 174–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.06.008.
[113] T.M. Marshall, Risk perception and safety culture: tools for improving the
implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies, Int. J. Dis. Risk Reduct. 47
(2020), 101557, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101557.
[114] R. Maskuriy, A. Selamat, P. Maresova, O. Krejcar, O.O. David, Industry 4.0 for the
construction industry: review of management perspective, Economies 7 (3)
(2019) 68, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7030068.
[115] R. Mena, M. Hennebel, Y.-F. Li, C. Ruiz, E. Zio, A risk-based simulation and multi-
objective optimization framework for the integration of distributed renewable
generation and storage, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 37 (2014) 778–793, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.046.
[116] P. Mesároš, T. Mandičák, A. Mesárošová, M. Behún, Developing managerial and
digital competencies trough BIM technologies in construction industry, in: 2016
International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications
(ICETA), IEEE, 2016, pp. 217–222, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICETA.2016.7802095.
[117] K. Miettinen, J. Hakanen, Why use interactive multi-objective optimization in
chemical process design?, MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION: techniques and
application in chemical engineering, World Sci. (2017) 157–197, isbn: 978-981-
3148-24-6.
[118] P.B. Miranda, R.F. Mello, A.C. Nascimento, A multi-objective optimization
approach for the group formation problem, Expert Syst. Appl. 162 (2020),
113828, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113828.
[119] S. Mirjalili, The ant lion optimizer, Adv. Eng. Softw. 83 (2015) 80–98, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.010.
[120] A. Mohammadi, M. Tavakolan, Y. Khosravi, Factors influencing safety
performance on construction projects: a review, Saf. Sci. 109 (2018) 382–397,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.017.
[121] R. Mohammadi, S.M.T.F. Ghomi, F. Jolai, Prepositioning emergency earthquake
response supplies: A new multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm,
Appl. Math. Model. 40 (9-10) (2016) 5183–5199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apm.2015.10.022.
[122] R. Mokhtari, A. Arabkoohsar, Feasibility study and multi-objective optimization
of seawater cooling systems for data centers: a case study of Caspian Sea, Sustain.
Energy Technol. Assess. 47 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101528.
[123] J. Mora-Serrano, M.-L. Rivera, I. Valero, Factors for the automation of the
creation of virtual reality experiences to raise awareness of occupational hazards
on construction sites, Electronics 10 (11) (2021) 1355, https://doi.org/10.3390/
electronics10111355.
[124] S. Mouassa, T. Bouktir, A. Salhi, Ant lion optimizer for solving optimal reactive
power dispatch problem in power systems, Eng. Sci. Technol. 20 (3) (2017)
885–895, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2017.03.006.
[125] A.A. Muhammad, I. Yitmen, S. Alizadehsalehi, T. Celik, Adoption of virtual reality
(VR) for site layout optimization of construction projects, Teknik Dergi (2020),
https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.423448.
[126] M. Najafi, K. Eshghi, W. Dullaert, A multi-objective robust optimization model for
logistics planning in the earthquake response phase, Transp. Res. Part E 49 (1)
(2013) 217–249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.09.001.
[127] S. Naji, L. Aye, M. Noguchi, Multi-objective optimisations of envelope
components for a prefabricated house in six climate zones, Appl. Energy 282
(2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116012.
[128] M. Namian, F. Taherpour, E. Ghiasvand, Y. Turkan, Insidious safety threat of
fatigue: investigating construction workers’ risk of accident due to fatigue,
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 147 (12) (2021) 04021162, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002180.
20
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
[129] A. Nesvijevskaia, S. Ouillade, P. Guilmin, J.-D. Zucker, The accuracy versus
interpretability trade-off in fraud detection model, Data Policy 3 (2021), https://
doi.org/10.1017/dap.2021.3.
[130] X. Ning, J. Qi, C. Wu, W. Wang, A tri-objective ant colony optimization based
model for planning safe construction site layout, Autom. Constr. 89 (2018) 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.01.007.
[131] W. Ostachowicz, R. Soman, P. Malinowski, Optimization of sensor placement for
structural health monitoring: A review, Struct. Health Monit. 18 (3) (2019)
963–988, https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921719825601.
[132] C. Oxendine, M. Sonwalkar, N. Waters, A. Multi-Objective, Multi-criteria
approach to improve situational awareness in emergency evacuation routing
using mobile phone data, Trans. GIS 16 (3) (2012) 375–396, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9671.2012.01341.x.
[133] V. Özkır, H. Başlıgil, Multi-objective optimization of closed-loop supply chains in
uncertain environment, J. Clean. Prod. 41 (2013) 114–125, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.013.
[134] B. Pandit, A. Albert, Y. Patil, A.J. Al-Bayati, Impact of safety climate on hazard
recognition and safety risk perception, Saf. Sci. 113 (2019) 44–53, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.020.
[135] A. Panwar, K.N. Jha, Integrating quality and safety in construction scheduling
time-cost trade-off model, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 147 (2) (2021) 04020160,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001979.
[136] A. Panwar, K.N. Jha, A many-objective optimization model for construction
scheduling, Constr. Manag. Econ. 37 (12) (2019) 727–739, https://doi.org/
10.1080/01446193.2019.1590615.
[137] I.N. Papadaki, A.P. Chassiakos, Multi-objective construction site layout planning
using genetic algorithms, Proc. Eng. 164 (2016) 20–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.proeng.2016.11.587.
[138] S.H.R. Pasandideh, S.T.A. Niaki, K. Asadi, Bi-objective optimization of a multi-
product multi-period three-echelon supply chain problem under uncertain
environments: NSGA-II and NRGA, Inf. Sci. 292 (2015) 57–74, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ins.2014.08.068.
[139] N.G. Paterakis, M. Gibescu, A.G. Bakirtzis, J.P.S. Catalao, A multi-objective
optimization approach to risk-constrained energy and reserve procurement using
demand response, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 33 (4) (2018) 3940–3954, https://doi.
org/10.1109/tpwrs.2017.2785266.
[140] M. Podolski, B. Sroka, Cost optimization of multiunit construction projects using
linear programming and metaheuristic-based simulated annealing algorithm,
J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 25 (8) (2019) 848–857, https://doi.org/10.3846/
jcem.2019.11308.
[141] C.C. Por, B. Yu, P. Xuebei, A. Mehrdad, X. Yunpeng, An integrated review of
automation and robotic technologies for structural prefabrication and
construction, Transp. Saf. Environ. 2 (2) (2022) 81–96, https://doi.org/10.1093/
tse/tdaa007.
[142] D. Prayogo, J.C. Sutanto, H.E. Suryo, S. Eric, A comparative study on bio-inspired
algorithms in layout optimization of construction site facilities, Civil Eng. Dimens.
20 (2) (2018) 102–110, https://doi.org/10.9744/ced.20.2.102-110.
[143] S. RazaviAlavi, S. AbouRizk, Site layout and construction plan optimization using
an integrated genetic algorithm simulation framework, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 31
(4) (2017) 04017011, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000653.
[144] D.J.T.M. Recm, E. Holt, Barriers to automation and robotics in construction, EPiC
Ser. Built Environ. 1 (2020) 257–265, https://doi.org/10.29007/1shp.
[145] M.J. Reddy, Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Computation for Single and
Multiobjective Optimization in Water Resource Systems, url: https://etd.iisc.ac.
in/handle/2005/370, 2008. access date: 2022/02/07.
[146] H. Ren, W. Zhou, K.I. Nakagami, W. Gao, Q. Wu, Multi-objective optimization for
the operation of distributed energy systems considering economic and
environmental aspects, Appl. Energy 87 (12) (2010) 3642–3651, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.06.013.
[147] K. Roy, K.K. Mandal, A.C. Mandal, Ant-Lion optimizer algorithm and recurrent
neural network for energy management of micro grid connected system, Energy
167 (2019) 402–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.153.
[148] M. Saadatpour, A. Afshar, Multi objective simulation-optimization approach in
pollution spill response management model in reservoirs, Water Resour. Manag.
27 (6) (2013) 1851–1865, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0230-y.
[149] H. Said, K. El-Rayes, Optimizing material procurement and storage on
construction sites, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (6) (2011) 421–431, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000307.
[150] T. Salama, O. Moselhi, Multi-objective optimization for repetitive scheduling
under uncertainty, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 26 (7) (2019) 1294–1320, https://
doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2018-0217.
[151] B. Sanchez, C. Rausch, C. Haas, R. Saari, A selective disassembly multi-objective
optimization approach for adaptive reuse of building components, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 154 (2020), 104605, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.104605.
[152] K. Sarrafha, S.H.A. Rahmati, S.T.A. Niaki, A. Zaretalab, A bi-objective integrated
procurement, production, and distribution problem of a multi-echelon supply
chain network design: a new tuned MOEA, Comput. Oper. Res. 54 (2015) 35–51,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.08.010.
[153] A.B. Senouci, S.A. Mubarak, Multiobjective optimization model for scheduling of
construction projects under extreme weather, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 22 (3) (2016)
373–381, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.897968.
[154] F. Shabani-Naeeni, R. Ghasemy Yaghin, Integrating data visibility decision in a
multi-objective procurement transport planning under risk: a modified NSGA-II,
Appl. Soft Comput. 107 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107406.
K. Guo and L. Zhang
[155] E.Q. Shahra, W. Wu, Water contaminants detection using sensor placement
approach in smart water networks, J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. (2020)
1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02262-x.
[156] B. Si, J. Wang, X. Yao, X. Shi, X. Jin, X. Zhou, Multi-objective optimization design
of a complex building based on an artificial neural network and performance
evaluation of algorithms, Adv. Eng. Inform. 40 (2019) 93–109, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aei.2019.03.006.
[157] A. Sivasuriyan, D.S. Vijayan, W. Górski, Ł. Wodzyński, M.D. Vaverková, E. Koda,
Practical implementation of structural health monitoring in multi-story buildings,
Buildings 11 (6) (2021) 263, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11060263.
[158] A.O. Sojobi, K.M. Liew, Multi-objective optimization of high performance bio-
inspired prefabricated composites for sustainable and resilient construction,
Compos. Struct. 279 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114732.
[159] H. Soleimani, K. Govindan, H. Saghafi, H. Jafari, Fuzzy multi-objective
sustainable and green closed-loop supply chain network design, Comput. Ind.
Eng. 109 (2017) 191–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.038.
[160] H. Soleimani, G. Kannan, A hybrid particle swarm optimization and genetic
algorithm for closed-loop supply chain network design in large-scale networks,
Appl. Math. Model. 39 (14) (2015) 3990–4012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apm.2014.12.016.
[161] R. Soman, M. Kyriakides, T. Onoufriou, W. Ostachowicz, Numerical evaluation of
multi-metric data fusion based structural health monitoring of long span bridge
structures, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (6) (2018) 673–684, https://doi.org/
10.1080/15732479.2017.1350984.
[162] C. Su, Design optimization of concrete aqueduct structure considering
temperature effects, Math. Probl. Eng. 2020 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1155/
2020/6679047.
[163] T.-S. Su, Y.-F. Lin, Fuzzy multi-objective procurement/production planning
decision problems for recoverable manufacturing systems, J. Manuf. Syst. 37
(2015) 396–408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.07.007.
[164] R. Yosia Sunindijo, Improving safety among small organisations in the
construction industry: key barriers and improvement strategies, Proc. Eng. 125
(2015) 109–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.017.
[165] X. Tan, W. Chen, G. Wu, L. Wang, J. Yang, A structural health monitoring system
for data analysis of segment joint opening in an underwater shield tunnel, Struct.
Health Monit. 19 (1) (2019), https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921719876045,
147592171987604.
[166] Y. Tang, R. Liu, F. Wang, Q. Sun, A.A. Kandil, Scheduling optimization of linear
schedule with constraint programming, Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 33
(2) (2018) 124–151, https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12277.
[167] A. Tereso, P. Ribeiro, G. Fernandes, I. Loureiro, M. Ferreira, Project management
practices in private organizations, Proj. Manag. J. 50 (1) (2019) 6–22, https://
doi.org/10.1177/8756972818810966.
[168] B. Vahdani, M. Mohammadi, A bi-objective interval-stochastic robust
optimization model for designing closed loop supply chain network with multi-
priority queuing system, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 170 (2015) 67–87, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.020.
[169] F. Wang, F. Liao, Y. Li, H. Wang, A new prediction strategy for dynamic multi-
objective optimization using Gaussian Mixture Model, Inf. Sci. 580 (2021)
331–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.08.065.
[170] J. Wang, S. Lo, Q. Wang, J. Sun, H. Mu, Risk of large-scale evacuation based on
the effectiveness of rescue strategies under different crowd densities, Risk Anal.
33 (8) (2013) 1553–1563.
[171] L. Wang, Design optimization of food safety monitoring system with social
network analysis, IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 5 (3) (2018) 676–686, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2018.2862461.
[172] M. Wang, X. Zhao, A.A. Heidari, H. Chen, Evaluation of constraint in photovoltaic
models by exploiting an enhanced ant lion optimizer, Sol. Energy 211 (2020)
503–521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.09.080.
[173] Y. Wang, A. Iyer, W. Chen, J.M. Rondinelli, Featureless adaptive optimization
accelerates functional electronic materials design, Appl. Phys. Rev. 7 (4) (2020),
041403, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0018811.
[174] Y. Wang, H. Lei, R. Hackett, M. Beeby, Safety assessment process optimization for
integrated modular avionics, IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 34 (11) (2019)
58–67, https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2019.2934543.
[175] X. Wu, Q. Liu, L. Zhang, M.J. Skibniewski, Y. Wang, Prospective safety
performance evaluation on construction sites, Accid. Anal. Prev. 78 (may) (2015)
58–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.003.
[176] Z. Wu, D. Yu, X. Kang, Parameter identification of photovoltaic cell model based
on improved ant lion optimizer, Energy Convers. Manag. 151 (2017) 107–115,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.088.
[177] P. Xiao, Z. Wu, R. Christenson, S. Lobo-Aguilar, Development of video analytics
with template matching methods for using camera as sensor and application to
highway bridge structural health monitoring, J. Civ. Struct. Heal. Monit. 10 (3)
(2020) 405–424, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00392-6.
[178] A. Xiaowei, L. Huimin, O. Ojuri, W. Zhuofu, D. Jiyong, Negotiation model of
design optimization profit distribution with fairness concerns in construction
projects, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 (7) (2018) 2178–2187, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12205-017-0190-0.
[179] J. Xu, Z. Li, Multi-objective dynamic construction site layout planning in Fuzzy
random environment, Autom. Constr. 27 (2012) 155–169, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2012.05.017.
[180] Y. Xu, O. Ding, R. Qu, K. Li, Hybrid multi-objective evolutionary algorithms based
on decomposition for wireless sensor network coverage optimization, Appl. Soft
Comput. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.053.
S1568494618301868.
21
Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256
[181] Y. Xu, C. Yan, S. Yan, H. Liu, Y. Pan, F. Zhu, Y. Jiang, A multi-objective
optimization method based on an adaptive meta-model for classroom design with
smart electrochromic windows, Energy (2021) 122777, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2021.122777.
[182] Y. Xu, G. Zhang, C. Yan, G. Wang, Y. Jiang, K. Zhao, A two-stage multi-objective
optimization method for envelope and energy generation systems of primary and
secondary school teaching buildings in China, Build. Environ. 204 (2021)
108142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108142.
[183] C. Yang, An adaptive sensor placement algorithm for structural health monitoring
based on multi-objective iterative optimization using weight factor updating,
Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 151 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ymssp.2020.107363.
[184] K. Yang, R.A. Davidson, B. Blanton, B. Colle, K. Dresback, R. Kolar, L.K. Nozick,
J. Trivedi, T. Wachtendorf, Hurricane evacuations in the face of uncertainty: Use
of integrated models to support robust, adaptive, and repeated decision-making,
Int. J. Dis. Risk Reduct. 36 (2019) 101093, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2019.101093.
[185] P. Yao, H. Wang, Dynamic adaptive ant lion optimizer applied to route planning
for unmanned aerial vehicle, Soft. Comput. 21 (18) (2017) 5475–5488, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2138-6.
[186] V. Yepes, T. García-Segura, J.M. Moreno-Jiménez, A cognitive approach for the
multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems, Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 15
(4) (2015) 1024–1036, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001.
[187] S.K. Yevu, T. Ann, A. Darko, Digitalization of construction supply chain and
procurement in the built environment: emerging technologies and opportunities
for sustainable processes, J. Clean. Prod. 322 (2021), 129093, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129093.
[188] K.-J. Yi, D. Langford, Scheduling-based risk estimation and safety planning for
construction projects, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 132 (6) (2006) 626–635, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:6(626).
[189] N.S. Yiu, D.W. Chan, M. Shan, N. Sze, Implementation of safety management
system in managing construction projects: benefits and obstacles, Saf. Sci. 117
(2019) 23–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.03.027.
[190] F. Yuan, L.D. Han, A multi-objective optimization approach for evacuation
planning, Proc. Eng. 3 (2010) 217–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2010.07.020.
[191] Y. Yuan, S. Ye, L. Lin, M. Gen, Multi-objective multi-mode resource-constrained
project scheduling with fuzzy activity durations in prefabricated building
construction, Comput. Ind. Eng. 158 (2) (2021) 107316, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2021.107316.
[192] S. Yun, S.H. Han, H. Kim, J.H. Ock, Capital structure optimization for
build–operate–transfer (BOT) projects using a stochastic and multi-objective
approach, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 36 (5) (2009) 777–790, https://doi.org/10.1139/l08-
134.
[193] V. Zamani, S.Y. Banihashemi, A. Abbasi, How can communication networks
among excavator crew members in construction projects affect the relationship
between safety climate and safety outcomes? Saf. Sci. 128 (2020), 104737
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104737.
[194] G. Zayton, W. Karlsson, Multi-Objective Optimization of Prefabricated Slabs-A
Case Study in Parametric Design, url: https://odr.chalmers.se/handle/20.500.123
80/302583, 2021 (access date: 2022.02.27).
[195] Y. Zhai, Y. Wang, Y. Huang, X. Meng, A multi-objective optimization
methodology for window design considering energy consumption, thermal
environment and visual performance, Renew. Energy 134 (2019) 1190–1199,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.024.
[196] L. Zhang, L. Ding, X. Wu, M.J. Skibniewski, An improved Dempster–Shafer
approach to construction safety risk perception, Knowl.-Based Syst. 132 (2017)
30–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.06.014.
[197] L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, H.X. Li, Z. Lei, Estimating long-term impacts of tunnel
infrastructure development on urban sustainability using granular computing,
Appl. Soft Comput. 113 (2021) 107932, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2021.107932.
[198] Q. Zhang, H. Guo, P.-C. Liao, D. Fang, M. Fu, Optimizing safety-measure
combinations to address construction risks, Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. (2020) 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1847500.
[199] F. Zhao, H. Bao, S. Xue, Q. Xu, Multi-objective particle swarm optimization of
sensor distribution scheme with consideration of the accuracy and the robustness
for deformation reconstruction, Sensors (Basel) 19 (6) (2019), https://doi.org/
10.3390/s19061306.
[200] Y. Zhou, S. Li, C. Zhou, H. Luo, Intelligent approach based on random forest for
safety risk prediction of deep foundation pit in subway stations, J. Comput. Civ.
Eng. 33 (1) (2019) 05018004.
[201] R. Zhu, X. Hu, J. Hou, X. Li, Application of machine learning techniques for
predicting the consequences of construction accidents in China, Process Saf.
Environ. Prot. 145 (2021) 293–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2020.08.006.
[202] M. Zohal, H. Soleimani, Developing an ant colony approach for green closed-loop
supply chain network design: a case study in gold industry, J. Clean. Prod. 133
(2016) 314–337, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.091.
[203] X. Zong, S. Xiong, Z. Fang, W. Lin, Multi-objective ant colony optimization model
for emergency evacuation, in: 2010 Sixth International Conference on Natural
Computation vol. 6, IEEE, 2010, pp. 2774–2778, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICNC.2010.5583265.
K. Guo and L. Zhang Automation in Construction 139 (2022) 104256

[204] F. Zou, G.G. Yen, L. Tang, C. Wang, A reinforcement learning approach for [206] Y. Pan, L. Zhang, Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and
dynamic multi-objective optimization, Inf. Sci. 546 (2021) 815–834, https://doi. management: A critical review and future trends, Autom. Constr. 122 (2021)
org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.08.101. 103517, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103517.
[205] L. Zhang, P. Lin, Multi-objective optimization for limiting tunnel-induced
damages considering uncertainties, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 216 (2021) 107945,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107945.

22