Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in construction engineering and

management research
Phuong H.D. Nguyen a, Aminah Robinson Fayek b, *
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
b
Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Fuzzy Hybrid Decision Support Systems for Construction, NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Strategic Construction Modeling and
Delivery, Professor, Hole School of Construction Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

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

Keywords: Construction engineering and management (CEM) becomes more complex with increasing project size and
Fuzzy hybrid techniques complexity. Various fuzzy hybrid techniques have been implemented to handle subjective uncertainty and
Systematic literature review vagueness in CEM problems. The objective of this paper is to investigate applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques
Content analysis
across different CEM applications (e.g., prediction, decision making, optimization) through a systematic review
Construction engineering and management
of 255 journal articles published from 2004 to 2021. A checklist of selection criteria for choosing an appropriate
fuzzy hybrid technique to solve a specific CEM problem was also established. This study contributes to the body
of knowledge by providing a state-of-the-art review of existing fuzzy hybrid techniques utilized in CEM to (1)
demonstrate their capabilities to overcome limitations of some standard techniques in solving complex con­
struction problems, (2) determine selection criteria for their applications, and (3) examine the applicability of
each fuzzy hybrid technique’s category to given practical construction problems.

1. Introduction demonstrating abilities of the standard techniques and also overcome

Increased project size and complexity as well as project delivery
risks, conflicting criteria, frequently inconsistent requirements, and the
dynamic nature of construction lead to highly complex construction
engineering and management (CEM) problems involving vagueness,
subjectivity, and uncertainty. To address these challenges, researchers
have implemented many modeling and computing approaches, such as
optimization, machine learning, multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM), and simulation [1,2]. However, most current applied methods
encounter difficulties in handling incomplete data, subjective judge­
ments, and linguistically expressed information in practical construction
problems. Construction researchers have used fuzzy logic – a human-like
reasoning approach – to tackle these challenges and improve modeling
efficiency [3,4]. Using fuzzy logic alone, however, is limited with
respect to solving all facets of a CEM problem. Thus, construction re­
searchers use hybridized fuzzy logic with standard techniques, such as
MCDM, simulation, optimization, and machine learning, to enhance
their capabilities in performing dynamic modeling and computing pro­
cesses [5,6]. Hybridization is defined as the process of integrating two or
more techniques to capitalize on strengths and overcome restrictions of
the techniques [7]. Therefore, fuzzy hybrid techniques are capable of
their limitations.
Current CEM literature shows that utilizing fuzzy hybrid techniques
improves modeling capacity and effectiveness in addressing CEM
problems involving incomplete data, subjective uncertainties, and am­
biguity [5,8]. For example, the hybridization of fuzzy logic and opti­
mization methods can enhance a model’s ability to capture both
subjective uncertainty and probabilistic uncertainty in the optimization
process [9]. Integration of fuzzy logic with machine learning methods,
such as artificial neural networks (ANNs), can overcome the latter’s
limitation in handling linguistically expressed information from input
data [10]. The literature also reveals that fuzzy logic has been hybrid­
ized with diverse modeling, computing, and decision-making techniques
in construction research over the past decades [4,7,10]. Therefore,
commonly used fuzzy hybrid techniques in construction research topics
can be classified based on particular types and purposes of the applied
computing techniques in construction problems, including optimization,
simulation, machine learning, and MCDM. Accordingly, major applica­
tions of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research can be grouped into
four categories: fuzzy hybrid machine learning, fuzzy hybrid MCDM,
fuzzy hybrid optimization, and fuzzy hybrid simulation. Fuzzy hybrid
machine learning techniques are capable of learning from data and are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aminah.robinson@ualberta.ca (A. Robinson Fayek).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.104064
Received 29 June 2021; Received in revised form 29 October 2021; Accepted 21 November 2021
Available online 30 November 2021
0926-5805/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

often utilized in CEM modeling problems related to classification and presents conclusions and possible future research directions regarding
prediction [11,12,13,14]. Fuzzy hybrid MCDM techniques are often potential improvements of each fuzzy hybrid category and possible
used to develop decision-aid models or systems that can accommodate applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques with advanced technologies in
various subjective judgements and linguistically expressed information construction.
of decision makers [15,16,17,18]. Fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques
are often implemented to solve multi-objective optimization problems, 2. Literature review
such as time-cost trade-offs, resource usage, and optimal solutions in
CEM research [19,20,21,22]. Fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques are A review of previous studies shows a variety of applications of fuzzy
capable of simulating construction systems (projects or activities), pro­ logic in construction research since Zadeh [36] first introduced it. Many
cesses, and agents, and they are applied to forecast the behavior of these studies have since reviewed and summarized practices of fuzzy set
systems under different conditions [23,24,25,26]. theory, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy hybrid techniques in construction, as
Fuzzy hybrid techniques have been increasingly used to select and shown in Table 1.
support applications of advanced technologies, such as building infor­ Chan et al. [40] provided the first comprehensive review of 52 fuzzy-
mation modeling (BIM), geographic information system (GIS), sensors, related studies from 1996 to 2005, which focused on categorizing fuzzy-
modular construction, alternative reality technologies (e.g., augmented related applications into two broad fields: fuzzy set / fuzzy logic and
reality / AR, virtual reality / VR), and emerging innovations (e.g., big fuzzy hybrid techniques in some common construction domains,
data analytics) in CEM research [27,28,29,30]. For example, Hoseini including decision making, performance, evaluation/assessment, and
et al. [31] utilized a fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach to investigate in­ modeling. Simić et al. [39] reviewed 54 fuzzy-related studies from 1966
fluences of BIM on CEM applications. As a result, the top three BIM to 2016, with a focus on supporting decision making in selection and
features that contribute to project success include parametric capability assessment of suppliers. Their study found that only 12% of the collected
of the 3D model, clash detection, and integrated design and develop­ studies dealt with fuzzy set theory, while 88% of them presented the use
ment of collaboration. Implementing advanced technologies also gen­ of fuzzy hybrid MCDM techniques in various models for selection of
erates a large volume of data and information that can be used with suppliers. As a result, they suggested implementing fuzzy hybrid tech­
modeling and computing techniques, such as decision making, optimi­ niques to solve complex decision-making problems in construction,
zation, prediction, and simulation, to solve practical construction especially in ranking, assessing, and selecting appropriate suppliers. To
problems. However, vast amounts of data collected from advanced improve risk management in construction projects, Islam et al. [38]
technologies often include incompleteness, vagueness, and subjective conducted a review of 83 papers concentrating on fuzzy logic and fuzzy
uncertainty due to the dynamic nature of construction projects [32]. To hybrid techniques published from 2005 to 2017. Differently from Chan
overcome these challenges, researchers use fuzzy hybrid techniques (e. et al. [40], they categorized fuzzy-related construction applications into
g., fuzzy optimization, fuzzy machine learning, fuzzy MCDM, fuzzy three groups: basic fuzzy-related applications with fuzzy set theory and
simulation) to perform data analysis in CEM research that utilizes
advanced technologies. CEM studies related to fuzzy hybrid techniques Table 1
and advanced technologies have been conducted for various processes of Previous fuzzy-related construction literature reviews.
a construction project, such as pre-design and planning, pre-
Reference Journal Paper Title Review Number of
construction, construction, controlling, and closing [27,28,29,30]. Periods Reviewed
Applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques are quickly evolving and Papers
widely implemented in a variety of practical construction problems Review fuzzy
[33,34,35]. However, no detailed content analysis has been done to multi-criteria
demonstrate integrated categorization and itemized applications of Chen and decision making in
Applied Soft
fuzzy hybrid techniques for solving specific CEM problems. Further­ Pan
Computing
construction 2007–2017 165
[37] management using
more, the current CEM literature also lacks guidelines for determining
a network
the applicability of specific fuzzy hybrid techniques to problems within a approach
particular CEM application area. Another research gap exists regarding a Neuro-fuzzy
systematic review of applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in sup­ Tiruneh
systems in
porting the selection of advanced technologies (e.g., BIM, GIS, sensors) Automation in construction
et al. 2000–2020 116
Construction engineering and
and handling subjective uncertainty and incompleteness of data in [10]
management
different processes of construction projects. To address these existing research
research gaps, the objectives of this study are to (1) investigate existing Current research
and emerging applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research, trends and
application areas
(2) determine selection criteria for applications of fuzzy hybrid tech­ Islam Advanced
of fuzzy and hybrid
niques to solve CEM problems, and (3) recommend potential improve­ et al. Engineering
methods to the risk
2005–2017 83
ments for each fuzzy hybrid category by utilizing the hybridization [38] Informatics
assessment of
between fuzzy logic and multiple standard techniques and their appli­ construction
cability to CEM studies that involve advanced technologies in con­ projects.
50 years of fuzzy
struction, as directions for future research. set theory and
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, an overview of Simić
Journal of models for supplier
et al. 1966–2016 54
recent applications of fuzzy logic in construction research is given. Then, Applied Logic assessment and
[39]
a systematic literature review methodology is presented, which uses selection: a
literature review
content analysis to highlight applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in
Overview of the
CEM research. This is followed by the integrated categorization of fuzzy Journal of application of
hybrid techniques across different CEM application areas along with Chan et al. Construction “fuzzy techniques”
1996–2005 52
detailed discussions of selected papers in each category that demon­ [40] Engineering and in construction
strate the capabilities of fuzzy hybrid techniques to solve complex CEM Management management
research
problems. Next, the discussion section provides a checklist for identifi­
cation and recommendation of selection criteria for applications of fuzzy
hybrid techniques to solve CEM problems. Finally, the last section

2
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
fuzzy logic; extended fuzzy-related applications with fuzzy arithmetic,
fuzzy expert system, fuzzy synthesis evaluation, fuzzy inference system,
and fuzzy consensus qualitative analysis; and fuzzy hybrid techniques
with fuzzy probability (e.g., fault tree, Monte-Carlo simulation, Bayesian
networks), fuzzy MCDM, fuzzy cloud model, and fuzzy integral process.
Their results indicated that fuzzy hybrid MCDM, such as fuzzy analytical
network process (FANP), is suitable to handling the complex interde­
pendence among construction risk factors. They found that FANP was
commonly used in infrastructure, tunnel, and power plant projects. In
addition, their study proposed using fuzzy Bayesian belief network in
risk assessment and management because of its ability to incorporate
new information into risk analysis. Tiruneh et al. [10] investigated
construction applications of neuro-fuzzy hybrid systems (NFS), a subset
of fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques, by reviewing 116 fuzzy-
related studies from 2000 to 2020. Their study reviewed and catego­
rized NFS into five core groups: gradient-based algorithms, hybrid
learning, population-based algorithms, extreme learning machine, and
support vector machine. They also found that most NFS were used in
predictive modeling of construction problems followed by some other
applications in decision making, evaluation/assessment, and system
modeling. Tiruneh et al. [10] produced a list of five common perfor­
mance evaluation criteria– accuracy, interpretability, convergence
speed, computational complexity, and local minima trapping – that are
used to select an appropriate NFS to solve construction problems. Ac­
cording to their review, NFS applications in construction concentrate
more on accuracy and overlook interpretability of model outcomes.
More recently, Chen and Pan [37] collected 165 papers related to ap­
plications of fuzzy MCDM in construction management and analyzed
them using a network approach in order to determine relationships
between fuzzy logic / fuzzy set and MCDM applications. Their collected
documents involved 37 single-hybrid fuzzy MCDM (i.e., hybridization of
fuzzy logic with a standard MCDM technique) and 17 multiple-hybrid
fuzzy MCDM (i.e., hybridization of fuzzy logic with two or more stan­
dard MCDM techniques). They found that the majority of fuzzy MCDM
techniques were used in the operation-and-maintenance process (44%),
followed by pre-design and planning (39%), and that the most-used
fuzzy hybrid MCDM technique was fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(AHP).
The previous literature review studies provide different applications
of fuzzy set theory, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy hybrid techniques in various
CEM application areas. The current literature indicates that fuzzy set
theory and fuzzy logic can be constantly applied to tackle complex
construction problems that involve linguistically expressed information
and subjective uncertainty by using appropriate fuzzy membership
functions and linguistic variables. In other cases, where fuzzy logic and
fuzzy set theory may not be the best fit because of random uncertainty
and high dynamism in construction projects, the hybridization of fuzzy
logic with other modeling and computing techniques is recommended.
Although previous studies provided detailed investigations into fuzzy
hybrid MCDM and NFS in construction management, other fuzzy hybrid
techniques, such as fuzzy optimization and fuzzy simulation, have not
been investigated in detail. Additionally, previous studies concentrated
on solving problems within a few CEM application areas, including
prediction and decision making. This study aims to extend the review of
current construction literature with a detailed and integrated categori­
zation of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research and recommenda­
tions for selecting an appropriate fuzzy hybrid technique to solve
problems within a specific CEM application area.
3. Systematic literature review methodology
This study included a systematic literature review methodology with
content analysis for collecting, organizing, and analyzing articles pub­
lished in high-quality journals presenting applications of fuzzy hybrid
techniques in CEM research. The applied methodology is based on the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
3
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
(PRISMA) approach presented by Moher et al. [41] and guidelines
from Booth et al. [42] to avoid biased selections and establish a
comprehensive body of knowledge on the reviewed subject. The meth­
odology includes four steps, as shown in Fig. 1: background, systematic
literature review methodology, results, and discussion.
The goals of the literature review were to (1) investigate recent ap­
plications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM, (2) support selection of
appropriate applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques to solve specific
construction problems, and (3) explore promising future research trends
regarding applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM. The
comprehensive review of applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques
concentrated on dynamic modeling and computing approaches (e.g.,
machine learning, MCDM, optimization, simulation). CEM researchers
and practitioners can use the results to understand the capabilities of
these techniques in solving construction problems, including the six
application areas of prediction, evaluation/assessment, planning/man­
agement, process modeling, system modeling, and performance. Spe­
cifically, the results identify what fuzzy hybrid techniques are
implemented and which problems they solve. Second, a list of recom­
mended selection criteria was developed for choosing suitable fuzzy
hybrid techniques to solve problems within these six CEM application
areas. This study identified problems and/or challenges that CEM re­
searchers face when choosing a fuzzy hybrid technique. Finally, a review
of recent applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques and advanced tech­
nologies (BIM, GIS, sensors, modular construction, alternative reality
technologies such as AR and VR) and emerging innovations (e.g., big
data analytics) is discussed. Study results will inform future construction
research in coordinating fuzzy hybrid techniques with modern
technologies.
3.1. Selection of journals and papers
Highly ranked journals in the field of construction research were
selected from multiple online libraries, including Google Scholar, Sci­
ence Direct, Emerald Insight, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, Wiley Online,
and SpringerLink, and different databases from the top publishers, such
as American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Elsevier, IEEE Trans­
actions, and Taylor & Francis Group. The three databases from which
the most collected articles were collected include Science Direct (75
papers), ASCE (63 papers), and Emerald Insight (46 papers). Selecting
multiple databases instead of a single generalized search engine maxi­
mized the coverage of selected articles related to applications of fuzzy
hybrid techniques in the CEM research community. Previous fuzzy-
related review and content analysis studies in construction used a sin­
gle generalized search engine for their literature search. For instance,
Chen and Pan [37] utilized Web of Science to collect journal papers
related to applications of fuzzy MCDM in construction management.
However, using a single generalized search engine can result in fewer
collected fuzzy-hybrid-related articles, which impacts the subsequent
content analysis and the ability for researchers to generalize adequate
findings [10]. This study also attempted to maximize the coverage of the
total fuzzy-related articles by performing a specific search into indi­
vidual target reputable journals listed in the Scimago Journal & Country
Rank list. The following criteria were used to select papers, journals, and
conference proceedings to include in the study. First, a paper or journal
had to have at least one of the following terms in the title, abstract, or
keywords: assessment, building, construction, decision, engineer, engineer­
ing, fuzzy logic, fuzzy sets, fuzzy systems, infrastructure, management,
modeling/modelling, performance, productivity, project, simulation, or soft
computing. Journals had to be published in English, peer reviewed, and
published regularly (e.g., weekly, bi-weekly, monthly) and have pub­
lished at least one paper related to the application of fuzzy hybrid
techniques in construction research. Since applications of fuzzy hybrid
techniques in construction from 1996 to 2005 were investigated and
summarized in a thorough literature review study by Chan et al. [40], a
criterion for paper selection in this study was that papers must have been
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
Fig. 1. Systematic literature review methodology
published from 2004 to 2021, presented hybridization of fuzzy logic
with another technique, and been specifically related to CEM.
The search process for this study considered title, abstract, keywords,
concluding remarks, and the content of relevant papers. After excluding
duplicate and irrelevant papers, 255 papers from 80 well-known jour­
nals in the CEM domain were selected for content analysis. Journals with
the most selected papers in this study include Automation in Construction
(29 papers), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Journal of Con­
struction Engineering and Management (27 papers), Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering (12 papers), Construction and Building Materials (11
papers), Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management (11 pa­
pers), ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering (9 papers), Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management (8 papers), International Journal of
Project Management (7 papers), Construction Management and Economics
(5 papers), and ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering (5 papers).
3.2. Content analysis
Formal content analysis was used to investigate possible trends and
patterns, dominant aspects, and relevant conclusions from applications
of fuzzy hybrid techniques in construction problems in the 255 selected
papers. Content analysis is a robust observational research method for
systematically organizing and evaluating the symbolic contents of
recorded documents and/or communications (either written or visual)
to determine major facets and develop valid inferences from the
4
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
collected information [43]. The leading benefit of content analysis is its
ability to accommodate a large volume of information and handle un­
structured data that might consist of meaningful conceptions of data
sources [44]. Content analysis can be qualitative or quantitative,
depending on the nature of the study [43]. Qualitative content analysis
emphasizes determining meaning by grouping data into categories
based on interpretation of the contents (e.g., themes, trends, patterns).
Quantitative content analysis extends the qualitative approach by
generating numerical values for the categorized data (e.g., frequencies,
ratings, rankings) and calculating overall frequency of a topic
mentioned throughout the entire collection. This study used both
qualitative and quantitative analysis. First, the contents of selected pa­
pers, including (1) application domain, (2) research problem, (3)
research objective, (4) fuzzy hybrid technique(s) used, (5) reason to
select the fuzzy hybrid technique(s) if applicable, and (6) dataset used to
train and evaluate the fuzzy hybrid technique if applicable, were
extracted. Then, fuzzy hybrid techniques were grouped into relevant
categories based on type of modeling and computing techniques and
year of publication. Next, fuzzy hybrid techniques were matched with
specific construction problems they were applied to. Finally, commonly
used fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research were identified and
reviewed in detail.
CEM applications can be classified using different approaches, such
as knowledge areas, process groups, and application areas [45]. In
addition to the ten originally classified project management knowledge
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
areas of integration, scope, cost, quality, schedule, risk, resource,
communication, procurement, and stakeholder management, the Proj­
ect Management Institute (PMI) also developed a construction-focused
extension with four new knowledge areas: safety, environmental,
financial, and claim management [10]. Process groups involve typical
stages of a construction project, such as initiation, planning, execution,
controlling, and closing. CEM consists of multidisciplinary application
categories, such as prediction, evaluation/assessment, performance
management, process/system modeling, and optimization, that crosscut
knowledge areas and process groups [10,40] as shown in Fig. 2.
CEM application areas can be categorized using content analysis to
classify applications under related headings (e.g., title, abstract, and
keywords) [46,47,10]. The content analysis results show that CEM
problems can be grouped into the six application areas: prediction,
evaluation/assessment, planning/management, process modeling, sys­
tem modeling, and performance. Prediction problems include fore­
casting construction project performance (e.g., project duration, cost
overrun, cash flow, client satisfaction), behaviors of construction com­
ponents (e.g., structural beams and columns, construction materials),
and construction productivity (e.g., activities, labor) [12,48,49,50].
Evaluation/assessment problems consist of decision making and pre­
diction that support selection of project delivery methods, contractors,
sub-contractors/suppliers, construction means and methods, construc­
tion technologies, and productivity improvement strategies [15,17,51].
Planning/management problems include analysis, decision making, and
optimization of project resources, scheduling, time-cost tradeoffs,
structural design, site layout planning, and supply chain management
[19,21,52]. Process modeling problems include analysis, simulation,
and prediction of construction processes, such as road traffic controls,
earthwork operations, bidding process, and pipeline maintenance
[33,53]. System modeling problems include analysis and simulation of
construction systems, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems, supply chain network design, construction structural
analysis, and infrastructure management [25,54]. Performance prob­
lems include optimization and prediction of time performance (e.g.,
project durations), cost performance (e.g., cost controls), productivity
performance (e.g., estimation of productivity), risk management, dis­
putes and claims, and client satisfaction [55,56,57]. Implementing the
multidisciplinary categorization approach shown in Fig. 2 allows a
systematic classification of CEM application areas regardless of knowl­
edge area or process group. For example, prediction is an essential CEM
application domain that cuts across multiple knowledge areas and pro­
cess groups. Evaluation/assessment problems consist of analysis, deci­
sion making, and selection of various knowledge areas such as resource,
cost, quality, and schedule, in multiple process groups including
Fig. 2. Multidisciplinary categorization of CEM application areas.
5
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
planning, execution, and controlling. Decision making is a broad
application category that encompasses a wide range of knowledge areas
and/or process groups. Specifically, in CEM research, decision-making
problems include investigation, reasoning, prioritization, selection,
and optimization of multiple knowledge areas (e.g., cost, safety, quality,
risk, and stakeholder management) and process groups (e.g., initiation,
planning, execution, and controlling). Accordingly, decision making
appears to be necessary part of some categorized CEM application areas
in this study, such as evaluation/assessment, planning/management,
and performance. Therefore, the six categorized application areas
concisely produce comprehensive results covering state-of-the-art CEM
applications across knowledge areas and process groups.
4. Categorization of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM
applications
Based on the detailed content analysis, applications of fuzzy hybrid
techniques from 255 selected papers were categorized into the six CEM
application areas of prediction, evaluation/assessment, planning/man­
agement, process modeling, system modeling, and performance. Table 2
shows that prediction problems represent 19% of construction prob­
lems, and about 96% of fuzzy machine learning techniques used in
prediction problems were fuzzy hybrid applications while about 4%
were fuzzy optimization techniques. Evaluation/assessment problems
represent 48% of construction problems, for which fuzzy hybrid MCDM
(64%) represents the majority of fuzzy hybrid techniques used, followed
by fuzzy hybrid machine learning (26%), fuzzy hybrid simulation (7%),
and fuzzy optimization (3%). Planning/management problems repre­
sent 20% of construction problems, for which fuzzy hybrid optimization
techniques consist of 58% of total fuzzy hybrid techniques used, fol­
lowed by fuzzy hybrid machine learning (21%) and fuzzy hybrid MCDM
(21%). Process modeling problems represent 7% of construction prob­
lems, and fuzzy hybrid simulation (82%) represents the majority of
fuzzy hybrid techniques applied to construction process modeling
problems, followed by fuzzy hybrid machine learning (18%). System
modeling problems represent 2% of construction problems, for which
the majority of fuzzy hybrid applications are fuzzy hybrid simulation
(67%), followed by fuzzy hybrid machine learning (33%). Performance
problems represent 4% of construction problems, with a fairly equal
implementation of all four categories of fuzzy hybrid techniques: fuzzy
hybrid machine learning (30%), fuzzy hybrid MCDM (26%), fuzzy
hybrid optimization (26%), and fuzzy hybrid simulation (18%).
The following sections give detailed results and discussions of each
fuzzy hybrid category. To illustrate essential capabilities of each fuzzy
hybrid technique in practical construction problems, selected related
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
Table 2
Summary of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM applications.
CEM Application Category Fuzzy Hybrid Technique Category
Optimization Machine Learning
Prediction 2 47
Evaluation/ Assessment 3 31
Planning/ Management 30 10
Process Modeling 0 4
System Modeling 0 2
Performance 3 4
Total Percent 14% 38%
papers are also discussed. Paper selection was based on three criteria: (1)
papers that developed and/or implemented different fuzzy hybrid
techniques in a given category were selected to demonstrate diverse
variants of fuzzy hybrid applications in CEM; (2) papers that utilized
fuzzy hybrid techniques to solve different construction problems were
selected to illustrate adequate capabilities of the technique in solving
various practical problems; and (3) the most recent papers were selected
if a large number of papers satisfied the first two criteria for a given
fuzzy hybrid category.
4.1. Fuzzy hybrid machine learning
The use of computer science and artificial intelligence (AI) ap­
proaches has been significantly increased in order to support modeling
and computing efforts in solving practical construction problems [58].
Researchers have combined machine learning, a discipline of AI appli­
cations that concentrates on developing computational methods and
models that have the ability to learn from data and solve different
problems combined with fuzzy logic to capitalize on the ability of
resulting models to accommodate subjectivity, incomplete information,
and ambiguity [5,10]. The content analysis results of this study show
that fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques represent the majority
(38%) of fuzzy hybrid applications in construction problems. Fuzzy
hybrid machine learning techniques are often utilized in construction
problems such as data classification [11,59], predictive modeling
[12,60,61], and pattern recognition [62]. Common fuzzy hybrid ma­
chine learning techniques include fuzzy hybridizations with ANNs
[48,63,64,65] and fuzzy clustering techniques [14,29,66].
CEM researchers have utilized various fuzzy hybridizations with
ANNs to overcome some limitations of a standalone ANN model,
including (1) incapability to accommodate subjective uncertainty, (2)
requiring a higher level of interpretability for outcomes from the
reasoning and prediction processes, and (3) necessity of large datasets
for training, validation, and testing procedures [46,67]. Three common
fuzzy hybridizations with ANN consist of NFS, cooperative neuro-fuzzy
systems, and fuzzy neural networks [5,68]. NFS techniques represent the
majority of fuzzy hybridizations with ANN in CEM research, where the
learning algorithm of ANN is combined with a fuzzy inference system as
a single hybrid fuzzy ANN model [10,69,70]. In addition, fuzzy ANN can
also be integrated with other standard techniques, such as artificial bee
colony, particle swarm optimization, and system dynamics, as multi-
hybrid fuzzy ANN models. Classification of NFS techniques can be
based on the structure of the fuzzy component (Mamdani or Takagi
Sugeno), learning algorithm (backpropagation, random, supervised, or
unsupervised learning), and fuzzy approach (type-1 and type-2) [68].
Two common NFS types are adaptive network-based fuzzy inference
system (ANFIS) developed by Jang [71] and the evolutionary fuzzy
neural inference model developed by Cheng and Ko [72]. Applications
of NFS techniques in construction are found in prediction/forecasting of
construction materials’ strengths [73,74,75], project cost estimation
[76], and evaluation of subcontractor and project manager [77,78].
Cooperative neuro-fuzzy systems include two independent components,
an ANN model and a fuzzy inference system, where the ANN model is
6
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
MCDM Simulation Total Percent
0 0 19%
80 7 48%
10 0 20%
0 18 7%
0 4 2%
3 2 4%
36% 12% 100%
used to develop the fuzzy inference system [5,40]. Current literature
identifies a few fuzzy hybridizations with ANNs categorized as cooper­
ative neuro-fuzzy systems, such as Mirhadi and Zayed’s [79] predictive
model for construction productivity. Fuzzy neural networks are another
type of fuzzy hybridization with ANNs in CEM problems [80]. These
techniques use the same architecture and learning algorithms as a
standard ANN model, with differences in handling input variables and
logical operations [5]. Fuzzy neural networks can handle both crisp and
fuzzy numbers, while only crisp inputs can be entered into ANNs.
Additionally, a fuzzy neural network utilizes logical fuzzy operations in
its hidden layer(s), while an ANN’s hidden layers deal with classical
arithmetic operations. Using logical fuzzy operations helps fuzzy neural
networks obtain a more transparent and interpretable reasoning process
[79].
Fuzzy clustering techniques, a discipline of unsupervised machine
learning, are used to classify data into meaningful classes based on
similarities and/or dissimilarities between data points [59,81]. Appli­
cations of fuzzy clustering techniques (e.g., fuzzy c-means, context-
specific fuzzy inference systems) have been used to develop data-
driven inference systems for predictive modeling [82], while crisp
clustering applications are only used for data classification [81,83]. In
some cases, fuzzy clustering techniques are used to classify data for
structural damage detection [84], development of control systems for
pavement deflection tests [85], monitoring project schedules [56], and
pavement design [59]. In other cases, fuzzy clustering techniques are
used in developing fuzzy inference systems for prediction, such as fuzzy
rule-based inference systems for selection of project delivery methods
[86] and predictive models for construction labor productivity [87].
Fuzzy clustering techniques can also be combined with other computing
techniques, such as pattern recognition and differential evolution algo­
rithm, to produce a multi-hybrid model. Table 3 presents selected papers
for fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques in construction.
4.2. Fuzzy hybrid multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
Construction problems often consist of a variety of decision-making
scenarios with multiple selection criteria involving complexity and un­
certainties [40]. MCDM techniques have been implemented in con­
struction problems to help decision makers identify, classify, select,
and/or rank a set of decision alternatives while balancing conflicting
criteria to derive optimal decisions. CEM researchers have combined
MCDM techniques with applications of fuzzy logic to better accommo­
date subjectivity and ambiguity in modeling processes [37]. Fuzzy
MCDM techniques have been widely used in construction, including
fuzzy AHP [101,102], the Technique for Ordering Preference by Simi­
larity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [103,104], VIsekriterijumska opti­
mizacija i KOmpromisno Resenje (VIKOR) [105,106], the Preference
Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluations (PROM­
ETHEE) [107], and Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite (ELEC­
TRE) [108].
Fuzzy AHP is an analytical approach that provides measurements
and assessments using pairwise comparisons between alternatives and is
capable of capturing subjective judgements and ambiguity from experts’
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

Table 3
Papers selected for fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques in CEM research.
CEM Application Year Reference Type of Hybrid Technique CEM Application Journal
Category Hybridization

Fuzzy Hybridizations with ANNs

Dastgheib et al. Project cost
Prediction 2021 Single hybrid ANFIS Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
[48] management
Construction material
Prediction 2021 Qi et al. [11] Multi-hybrid ANFIS, artificial bee colony Construction and Building Materials
strength
Golafshani et al. Construction material
Prediction 2020 Multi-hybrid ANFIS, Grey Wolf Optimizer Construction and Building Materials
[12] strength
Construction material- Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Prediction 2020 Madani et al. [13] Multi-hybrid ANFIS, ANNs
cement Construction
Khotbehsara et al. Construction material-
Prediction 2018 Single hybrid ANFIS Construction and Building Materials
[89] mortar
Khademi and Jamal Construction material- International Journal of Structural
Prediction 2017 Single hybrid ANFIS
[90] concrete Engineering
Rezaie and Sadighi Construction material- International Journal of Civil Engineering
Prediction 2017 Single hybrid ANFIS
[49] concrete and Technology
Project cost Journal of Civil Engineering and
Prediction 2017 Wang et al. [70] Single hybrid ANFIS
management Management
Construction material-
Prediction 2016 Zhou et al. [92] Multi-hybrid NFS Construction and Building Materials
concrete
Sadrossadat et al. Construction material-
Prediction 2016 Single hybrid ANFIS Construction and Building Materials
[93] soil
Al-zharani et al. Construction material-
Prediction 2016 Single hybrid ANFIS Construction and Building Materials
[94] concrete
Construction material- International Journal of Structural and Civil
Prediction 2016 Siraj et al. [73] Single hybrid ANFIS
concrete Engineering Research
Evaluation/ Naderpour and Structural design Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
2019 Single hybrid ANFIS
assessment Mirrashid [88] analysis Construction
Evaluation/ Construction project Engineering, Construction and Architectural
2019 Utama et al. [64] Single hybrid ANFIS
assessment selection Management
Evaluation/ NFS, particle swarm Infrastructure
2017 Liu et al. [21] Multi-hybrid Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
assessment optimization maintenance
Evaluation/ Construction material-
2017 Khademi et al. [69] Single hybrid Fuzzy ANNs Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering
assessment concrete
Evaluation/
2016 Kabir et al. [91] Single hybrid ANFIS Pipeline maintenance Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
assessment
Evaluation/ Omar and Fayek
2016 Multi-hybrid Fuzzy ANNs Project performance Automation in Construction
assessment [80]
Planning/ Construction International Journal of Construction
2021 Sarihi et al. [60] Multi-hybrid ANFIS
management productivity Management
Planning/ Structural design
2020 Soares et al. [63] Multi-hybrid ANFIS Engineering Structures
management analysis
Project risk
Process modeling 2018 Peña et al. [65] Multi-hybrid ANFIS, Monte Carlo simulation Expert Systems with Applications
management
Mirahadi and Zayed Construction
Process modeling 2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy ANNs Automation in Construction
[79] productivity
Gerami Seresht and Construction
System modeling 2020 Multi-hybrid NFS, system dynamics Applied Soft Computing
Fayek [66] productivity
Fuzzy Clustering Techniques
Gerami Seresht Construction
Prediction 2020 Single hybrid Fuzzy clustering Applied Soft Computing
et al. [66] productivity
Ouma and Hahn Construction
Prediction 2017 Single hybrid Fuzzy c-means Automation in Construction
[29] management
Evaluation/ Project delivery Journal of Construction Engineering and
2020 Nguyen et al. [14] Single hybrid Fuzzy clustering
assessment selection Management
Evaluation/ Fuzzy c-mean, pattern Project delivery Journal of Construction Engineering and
2020 Nguyen et al. [86] Multi-hybrid
assessment recognition selection Management
ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Planning/ Pavement design-load
2017 Li et al. [59] Single hybrid Fuzzy clustering in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil
management determination
Engineering
Planning/ Tsehayae and Fayek Construction Journal of Construction Engineering and
2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy inference system
management [87] productivity Management
Tsehayae and Fayek Construction
System modeling 2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy inference system Construction Innovation
[67] productivity
Fuzzy clustering, differential Project resource
Performance 2016 Tran et al. [55] Multi-hybrid Alexandria Engineering Journal
evolution management
Other Fuzzy Hybrid Machine Learning Techniques
Evaluation/ Mohamad and Tran Construction Journal of Construction Engineering and
2021 Single hybrid Fuzzy Bayesian network
assessment [95] inspection Management
Evaluation/ Abad and Naeni Fuzzy fault tree, event tree Project risk International Journal of Construction
2020 Multi-hybrid
assessment [96] analysis management Management
Evaluation/
2019 Lin and Huang [32] Single hybrid Fuzzy rule-based reasoning Design management Applied Sciences
assessment
2019 Shoar et al. [99] Single hybrid Fuzzy fault tree analysis Construction Innovation
(continued on next page)

7
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
Table 3 (continued )
CEM Application Year Reference Type of Hybrid Technique
Category Hybridization
Evaluation/
assessment
Planning/ Shoar and Banaitis
2019 Single hybrid Fuzzy fault tree analysis
management [98]
Fuzzy extreme learning
Planning/ Phoemphon et al.
2018 Multi-hybrid machine, particle swarm
management [100]
optimization
Process modeling 2020 Rezakhani [97] Single hybrid Fuzzy Bayesian network
evaluations [17]. This type of fuzzy hybrid technique has been widely
used in various decision-making processes in construction, including
construction material selections [15], project cost management
[109,110], project risk management [16,111,112], supplier selection
[51,102], sustainability analysis [113,114,115], and project team
development [116]. Fuzzy TOPSIS can be used to assess and rank al­
ternatives based on a set of selection criteria associated with pre­
determined weights. It can handle subjective uncertainty and vagueness
created by the participation of experts in assessing selection criteria for
identifying optimal alternatives [37], and it is capable of analyzing fuzzy
input numbers, which allows experts to provide their evaluation using
linguistic terms rather than a precise quantitative assessment for deci­
sion alternatives and selection criteria. Fuzzy TOPSIS is often used in
construction safety [117], construction productivity [118], road pave­
ment selection [119], construction material selection [120,121,122],
project risk management [35,123,124], off-site construction manage­
ment [125], site layout planning [3,20], and supplier selection
[103,126]. Fuzzy VIKOR method concentrates on assessing decision
alternatives, based on a set of conflicting criteria and a statistical metric
to calculate the distance of the alternatives from the best alternative.
This hybrid technique is used to solve decision-making problems in
project risk management [18,127] and in selection of advanced tech­
nologies (e.g., BIM) [31] in construction. While fuzzy AHP can be used
with other techniques, such as fuzzy Delphi and FANP as a multi-hybrid
model, the majority of fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy VIKOR, and fuzzy ELECTRE
were found as single hybrid models. Table 4 presents selected papers for
fuzzy hybrid MCDM techniques in construction.
4.3. Fuzzy hybrid simulation
Fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques are capable of handling the dy­
namic nature of construction problems (systems and processes) and
capturing the interrelationships among variables that affect the behav­
iors of the systems and/or processes, such as project size, duration,
project complexity, and project risks [152]. Fuzzy hybrid simulation has
been implemented for many complex construction problems to provide
sufficient solutions under different scenarios. This technique represents
12% of applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in construction. The
content analysis results for this study show that common fuzzy simula­
tion techniques have been implemented in CEM problems, including
fuzzy Monte Carlo simulation (FMCS), fuzzy discrete event simulation
(FDES), fuzzy system dynamics (FSD), and fuzzy agent-based modeling
(FABM).
FMCS has been implemented mostly in construction risk manage­
ment because of its ability to simultaneously model and process various
uncertainties, including probabilistic and subjective uncertainty of
project risk factors [5]. For example, Sadeghi et al. [153] utilized FMCS
in simulating project cost estimation problems and found that it provides
decision makers with more detailed project cost results compared to the
standard Monte Carlo simulation. In addition, their study concluded that
an increase in the number of variables that require representation using
fuzzy membership functions (i.e., subjective variables) escalates fuzzi­
ness in simulation outcomes. FMCS techniques are often used in risk
8
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
CEM Application Journal
Project risk
management
Journal of Civil Engineering and
Labor productivity
Management
Site location Applied Soft Computing
International Journal of Construction
Project scheduling
Management
analysis for infrastructure management [25], water network design
[154], and pipeline maintenance [155]. FMCS can also be incorporated
with FABM in modeling construction crew performance [24]. FDES is
often applied to modeling construction processes consisting of various
activities performed in a sequence to predict duration of the process or
usage of necessary resources. Recent FDES applications in CEM research
include modeling project scheduling [26,156] and managing project
resources [157]. FSD is a hybrid integration of fuzzy logic with system
dynamics method, developed by Levary [158]. Hybrid integration en­
hances capabilities of (1) handling the dynamic nature and in­
terrelationships among different components of the construction system,
(2) using fuzzy membership functions to represent system variables that
involve subjective uncertainty, and (3) using fuzzy rule-based inference
system in FSD to model uncertainty of the interactions among system
variables. Common applications of FSD in construction problems
include construction risk assessments [23,159], construction produc­
tivity [160,161], quality management in construction projects [162],
quantification of the impacts of construction claims [163], modeling
social sustainability in construction [33], and modeling project contin­
gency [164]. FABM has been increasingly used in construction problems
over the past decade to model complex construction systems with
interacting elements, which is defined as individual agents in agent-
based modeling (ABM). The hybridization of fuzzy logic with ABM to
develop FABM can augment model capability by using fuzzy member­
ship functions instead of probabilistic distributions to represent sub­
jective characteristics of agents. FABM techniques are often used in
modeling construction crew performance [24,53,165]. Although some
multi-hybrid models were found between fuzzy Monte Carlo and agent-
based simulation, fuzzy cognitive maps and structural equation
modeling, or FABM and MCDM, most fuzzy simulation techniques have
been used as a single hybrid model. Table 5 presents selected papers for
fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques in construction.
4.4. Fuzzy hybrid optimization
CEM research anticipates many complex nonlinear optimization
problems, such as monitoring project schedule to simultaneously ach­
ieve multiple project objectives, planning project site layouts, managing
construction supply chain, and assessing working conditions of con­
struction structures [170,171]. For example, Bakry et al. [172] devel­
oped a fuzzy optimization and buffering algorithm for determining the
optimum scheduling solution of repetitive construction projects with
different objectives including time, cost, and users’ desired confidence
in the final schedule. Their results indicated that fuzzy optimization
algorithm is capable of modeling subjective uncertainties associated
with input variables. Fuzzy-related optimization applications can be
used to handle fuzzy variables and any fuzzy restrictions involved in the
optimization process [173,174] and/or enhance the strengths and
overcome shortcomings of a standard optimization algorithm
[175,176]. The content analysis results of this study show that fuzzy
hybrid optimization techniques are formulated by combining fuzzy logic
with numerous standard optimization approaches including evolu­
tionary algorithms [19], particle swarm optimization [20], ant colony
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

Table 4
Papers selected for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in CEM research.
CEM Application Year Reference Type of Hybrid Technique CEM Application Journal
Category Hybridization

Fuzzy AHP
Evaluation/ Construction material
2021 Figueiredo et al. [15] Single hybrid Fuzzy-AHP Building and Environment
assessment selection
Evaluation/
2020 Mirhosseini et al. [128] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy DEMATEL, ANP Project management Sustainability
assessment
Evaluation/ Project risk Journal of Construction Engineering
2019 Beltrão and Carvalho [16] Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP
assessment management and Management
Evaluation/ Project risk Journal of Construction Engineering
2019 Monzer et al. [112] Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP
assessment management and Management
Evaluation/ Structural design
2019 Yang et al. [17] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy AHP Journal of Bridge Engineering
assessment analysis
Evaluation/ Benchmarking: An International
2018 Kumar et al. [51] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy Delphi, AHP-DEMATEL Supplier selection
assessment Journal
Evaluation/ Tomczak and Jaśkowski Project team
2018 Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
assessment [116] development
Evaluation/ Sustainability
2018 Jang et al. [113] Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP Journal of Management in Engineering
assessment analysis
Evaluation/ Sustainability Journal of Construction Engineering
2017 Zhao et al. [114] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy AHP, ANP
assessment analysis and Management
Evaluation/ Sustainability
2017 Inti and Tandon [115] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy AHP, MCDM Journal of Infrastructure Systems
assessment analysis
Evaluation/ Prascevic and Prascevic Journal of Civil Engineering and
2017 Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP Project plan selection
assessment [130] Management
Evaluation/ Plebankiewicz and Kubek Journal of Construction Engineering
2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP Supplier selection
assessment [102] and Management
Evaluation/ Abdul-Rahman et al. Sustainability Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP
assessment [131] analysis Engineers - Engineering Sustainability
Evaluation/ Structure and Infrastructure
2016 El-Abbasy et al. [132] Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP Pipeline maintenance
assessment Engineering
Planning/ Project risk Engineering, Construction and
2019 Aladağ and Işık [111] Single hybrid Fuzzy AHP
management management Architectural Management
Planning/
2018 Mavi and Standing [110] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy DEMATEL, ANP Project management Journal of Cleaner Production
management
Project cost International Journal of Managing
Performance 2020 Afzal et al. [109] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy AHP, simulation
management Projects in Business
Fuzzy AHP, fuzzy preference Infrastructure Journal of Performance of Constructed
Performance 2017 Omar et al. [129] Multi-hybrid
program maintenance Facilities
Fuzzy TOPSIS
Evaluation/ Road pavement
2020 Pasha et al. [119] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Soft Computing
assessment selection
Evaluation/ Journal of Civil Engineering and
2020 Mohandes et al. [117] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Construction safety
assessment Management
Evaluation/ Construction material International Journal of Construction
2019 Reddy et al. [120] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS
assessment selection Management
Evaluation/ Fuzzy comprehensive Project risk
2019 Gebrehiwet and Luo [35] Multi-hybrid Symmetry
assessment evaluation, TOPSIS management
Evaluation/ Project risk
2019 Norouzi and Namin [123] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Civil Engineering Journal
assessment management
Evaluation/ Mathiyazhagan et al. Construction material Journal of Advances in Management
2019 Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS
assessment [122] selection Research
Evaluation/ Interior design and Engineering, Construction and
2019 Juan et al. [28] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS
assessment decoration Architectural Management
Evaluation/ Project risk
2018 Yazdi [124] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Safety Science
assessment management
Evaluation/ Fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy positive/
2017 Liang et al. [133] Multi-hybrid Project plan selection Journal of Infrastructure Systems
assessment negative-ideal solution
Evaluation/
2017 Jang et al. [103] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Supplier selection Journal of Management in Engineering
assessment
Evaluation/
2017 Maghsoodi et al. [134] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Project performance KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
assessment
Evaluation/ Journal of Civil Engineering and
2017 Polat et al. [126] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Supplier selection
assessment Management
Evaluation/ Contract
2016 Al-Humaidi [135] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Journal of Management in Engineering
assessment management
Evaluation/ Construction Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
2016 Fayek and Omar [118] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS
assessment productivity Analysis
Evaluation/
2016 Ning et al. [3] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Site layout planning Automation in Construction
assessment
Planning/ Construction material International Journal of Construction
2019 Fazeli et al. [121] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS
management selection Management
Planning/ Off-site construction Architectural Engineering and Design
2018 Arashpour et al. [125] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS
management management Management
2018 Song et al. [20] Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS Site layout planning
(continued on next page)

9
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

Table 4 (continued )
CEM Application Year Reference Type of Hybrid Technique CEM Application Journal
Category Hybridization

Planning/ Journal of Computing in Civil

management Engineering
Fuzzy VIKOR
Evaluation/ Project risk Journal of Natural Gas Science and
2019 Mete et al. [18] Single hybrid Fuzzy VIKOR
assessment management Engineering
Evaluation/ International Journal of Industrial
2019 Hoseini et al. [31] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy VIKOR, FANP Project management
assessment Engineering and Production Research
Evaluation/ Project risk
2018 Wang et al. [127] Single hybrid Fuzzy VIKOR Applied Soft Computing
assessment management
Fuzzy ELECTRE
Evaluation/
2016 Wu et al. [108] Single hybrid Fuzzy ELECTRE Project plan selection Energy Conversion and Management
assessment
Evaluation/ Project team International Journal of Strategic
2014 Chaghooshi et al. [136] Single hybrid Fuzzy ELECTRE
assessment development Decision Sciences
Evaluation/ Yazdani-Chamzini et al. Project risk International Journal of Management
2013 Single hybrid Fuzzy ELECTRE
assessment [137] management Science and Engineering Management
Other Fuzzy MCDM Techniques
Evaluation/ Engineering, Construction and
2021 Eghbali-Zarch et al. [138] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy IDOCRIW, WASPAS Project management
assessment Architectural Management
Evaluation/ Karamoozian and Wu Fuzzy failure mode and Project risk Engineering, Construction and
2020 Single hybrid
assessment [139] effective analysis management Architectural Management
Evaluation/ Gharanfoli and Project risk Journal of Multi Criteria Decision
2019 Single hybrid Fuzzy DEMATEL, ANP
assessment Valmohammadi [140] management Analysis
Evaluation/ Hatefi and Tamošaitienė Project risk Journal of Civil Engineering and
2019 Multi-hybrid Fuzzy DEMATEL, ANP
assessment [141] management Management
Evaluation/ Fuzzy failure mode and effect Project risk Journal of Construction Engineering
2019 Yazdani et al. [142] Multi-hybrid
assessment analysis management and Management
Evaluation/ Fuzzy qualitative flexible Engineering, Construction and
2019 Liang and Chong [143] Single hybrid Supplier selection
assessment multiple attributes Architectural Management
Evaluation/ Sedady and Beheshtinia Construction project
2019 Single hybrid Fuzzy TOPKOR Management of Environmental Quality
assessment [144] selection
Evaluation/ International Journal of Construction
2019 Chen et al. [27] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy MAUT Project management
assessment Management
Evaluation/ Mohande and Zhang
2019 Single hybrid Fuzzy best worst method Construction safety Safety Science
assessment [145]
Evaluation/
2018 Gunduz et al. [146] Single hybrid fuzzy structural equation model Construction safety Automation in Construction
assessment
Evaluation/ Ardeshir and Mohajeri International Journal of Injury Control
2018 Multi-hybrid Fuzzy DEMATEL, ANP Construction safety
assessment [147] and Safety Promotion
Evaluation/ Journal of Urban Planning and
2018 Boostani et al. [148] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy DEMATEL, ANP Site layout planning
assessment Development
Evaluation/ Fuzzy evaluation based on Project resource Archives of Civil and Mechanical
2018 Ghorabaee et al. [149] Single hybrid
assessment distance from average solution management Engineering
Evaluation/ Project risk
2016 Ameyaw and Chan [150] Single hybrid Fuzzy risk-allocation criteria Journal of Infrastructure Systems
assessment management
Evaluation/ Singhaputtangkul and Journal of Construction Engineering
2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy consensus scheme Project plan selection
assessment Zhao [151] and Management
Planning/ Project risk
2018 Chatterjee et al. [2] Multi-hybrid Fuzzy preference relation, FANP Symmetry
management management

systems [22], optimum system hierarchy analysis [177], artificial bee
colony algorithms [178], adaptive fuzzy Pareto set [179], and linear
programming [180].
Fuzzy evolutionary algorithms are population-based optimization
algorithms with two common applications of genetic algorithm and
differential evolution that have been used to accommodate subjectivity
and vagueness in construction optimization problems [5]. These hybrid
techniques are commonly used in project scheduling [176], structural
design [19,173], site layout planning [52], supply chain management
[174], and supplier selection [171]. Fuzzy particle swarm optimization
approach, another population-based algorithm deriving optimum solu­
tions in terms of particles, has been used to handle uncertainties, such as
subjectivity, imprecision, and ambiguity, in various optimization prob­
lems [6]. This hybrid technique is often used in construction problems
involving project resource management [20], project scheduling [181],
and site layout planning [182]. Fuzzy ant colony optimization, a prob­
abilistic multi-agent technique, has been widely implemented in CEM
research to capture subjective uncertainty and vagueness in multi-
objective optimization problems. Applications of fuzzy ant colony
optimization are used in many combinatorial optimization problems
involving scheduling, classification, and vehicle routing [22,183,184].
The CEM literature shows that the majority of fuzzy optimization
techniques were used in terms of a single hybrid approach. Table 6
presents selected papers for fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques in
construction.
5. Discussions
This section presents (1) the identification and development of se­
lection criteria for the implementation of fuzzy hybrid techniques to
solve CEM problems and (2) suitability of fuzzy hybrid techniques to
specific CEM application areas.
5.1. Selection criteria of fuzzy hybrid techniques for construction
problems
A variety of applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques have been used
to solve problems within a specific CEM application area. The diversity
of techniques applied in various CEM problems leads to difficulties in
evaluating and comparing the performance and accuracy of fuzzy hybrid

10
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

Table 5
Papers selected for fuzzy simulation techniques in CEM research.
CEM Application Year Reference Type of Hybrid Technique CEM Application Journal
Category Hybridization

Fuzzy Monte Carlo Simulation

Evaluation/ Parvizsedghy et al.
2015 Single hybrid FMCS Pipeline maintenance Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
assessment [155]
Gouri and Srinivas Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk
Process modeling 2017 Single hybrid FMCS Water network design
[154] Assessment
Infrastructure ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in
System modeling 2017 Attarzadeh et al. [25] Single hybrid FMCS
management Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
Fuzzy Discrete Event Simulation
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Process modeling 2016 Sadeghi et al. [26] Single hybrid FDES Project scheduling
Management
Project resource
Performance 2015 Sadeghi et al. [157] Single hybrid FDES Automation in Construction
management
Fuzzy System Dynamics
Evaluation/ Project risk
2020 Siraj and Fayek [164] Single hybrid FSD Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
assessment management
Evaluation/ Etemadinia and Project risk
2018 Single hybrid FSD International Journal of Construction Management
assessment Tavakolan [23] management
Rostamnezhad et al. Sustainable Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Process modeling 2020 Multi-hybrid FSD, DEMATEL
[33] development Management
Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Process modeling 2019 Nasirzadeh et al. [163] Single hybrid FSD Project management
Management
Gerami Seresht and Construction
Process modeling 2018 Single hybrid FSD Manuscript submitted for publication
Fayek [160] productivity
Nojedehi and Construction
Process modeling 2017 Single hybrid FSD KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
Nasirzadeh [161] productivity
Fuzzy Agent-Based Modeling
Construction crew Journal of Construction Engineering and
Process modeling 2020 Raoufi and Fayek [24] Multi-hybrid FMCS, FABM
performance Management
Construction crew
Process modeling 2020 Kedir et al. [165] Multi-hybrid FABM, MCDM Journal of Management in Engineering
performance
Construction crew
Process modeling 2018 Raoufi and Fayek [53] Single hybrid FABM Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
performance
Other Fuzzy Simulation Techniques
Evaluation/ Engineering, Construction and Architectural
2020 Luo et al. [166] Multi-hybrid FCM, SEM Project management
assessment Management
Evaluation/
2020 Naji et al. [167] Single hybrid Fuzzy SEM Project management IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
assessment
Evaluation/ FIS, Latin hypercube Project risk
2019 Haqiqat et al. [168] Multi-hybrid Journal of Project Management
assessment simulation management
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Process modeling 2018 Khanzadi et al. [169] Single hybrid Fuzzy cognitive map Change management
Management

techniques. A guideline is needed regarding applicability, accuracy, and
reliability of implementing fuzzy hybrid techniques in specific CEM
research areas. The current literature shows that multiple performance
evaluation criteria, such as accuracy, validity, applicability, and intel­
ligibility, need to be considered when selecting a fuzzy hybrid technique
to solve construction problems [10,37], and these criteria reflect the
dynamic nature of the construction industry and variability in categories
of CEM application areas. CEM researchers and practitioners can select a
fuzzy hybrid technique based on their expertise, research interests, and
specific CEM application areas (e.g., prediction, decision making, opti­
mization). For example, the majority of previous studies have selected
fuzzy machine learning techniques for CEM problems related to pre­
diction [68] while fuzzy optimization techniques have often been
selected for planning/management problems [5]. Fuzzy MCDM tech­
niques have been used to investigate and solve most evaluation/
assessment problems [37]. Most system and process modeling problems
in CEM research have implemented fuzzy simulation techniques [8,38].
Researchers selected a variety of fuzzy hybrid techniques in perfor­
mance problems where fuzzy optimization, fuzzy machine learning, and
fuzzy MCDM were applied [39,157,188]. To support subjective judge­
ments in current selection of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research, a
comprehensive list of selection criteria in terms of fuzzy hybrid tech­
niques and their applications across six CEM research areas is needed.
Concerns in selecting fuzzy hybrid techniques over single modeling
and computing methods relate to the ability of models to deal with data
availability (e.g., linguistically expressed information) and
accommodate uncertainty and imprecision in modeling and computing
processes [5,81]. Subjectivity, vagueness, and lack of data in modeling
increase the complexity of CEM problems, leading to concerns regarding
prediction accuracy, decision-making reliability, interpretability of
outcomes, and implementation complexity [189]. In addition, every
CEM problem requires a different set of criteria for selecting fuzzy
hybrid techniques depending on the problem’s characteristics and
application domains. For example, CEM prediction problems require
modeling approaches with the ability to perform trend analysis and
pattern recognition for predicting and high prediction accuracy [10],
while evaluation/assessment problems need modeling approaches that
can prioritize available alternatives and determine the optimal option
[37]. Results of the detailed content analysis of 255 publications show
that decisions in selecting an appropriate fuzzy hybrid technique can be
made based on six categories of performance evaluation criteria: (1)
data availability, (2) processing ability, (3) computational complexity,
(4) interpretability, (5) accuracy, and (6) implementation complexity, as
shown in Table 7. Each criterion is described in a following section.
5.1.1. Accuracy
Accuracy is the most important criterion in selecting fuzzy hybrid
techniques for CEM research and solving practical construction prob­
lems [4,10]. Accuracy requires techniques with the ability to capture
uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs, obtain high validity, pro­
duce low training and testing errors, produce the least root-mean-square
error and/or mean absolute error between the target values and the

11
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

Table 6
Papers selected for fuzzy hybrid optimization models in CEM research.
CEM Application Year Reference Type of Hybrid Technique CEM Application Journal
Category Hybridization

Fuzzy Hybrid Evolutionary Models

Planning/ Marzouk and Sustainable construction
2020 Single hybrid Fuzzy genetic algorithm Decision Science Letters
management Abdelakder [185] materials
Planning/ Building deterioration
2020 Ahmed et al. [170] Single hybrid Fuzzy genetic algorithm Algorithms
management prediction
Planning/ IEEE Transactions on Engineering
2017 Liu et al. [174] Single hybrid Fuzzy genetic algorithm Supply chain management
management Management
Planning/
2017 Song et al. [52] Single hybrid Fuzzy genetic algorithm Site layout planning International Journal of Civil Engineering
management
Planning/
2017 Tu et al. [171] Single hybrid Fuzzy genetic algorithm Supplier selection Journal of Infrastructure Systems
management
Planning/ Haghighi and Ayati
2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy genetic algorithm Structural design-dam Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems
management [173]
Planning/ Fuzzy differential
2016 Cheng and Tran [176] Single hybrid Project scheduling KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
management evolution
ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and
Performance 2020 Bagheri et al. [19] Single hybrid Fuzzy genetic algorithm Structural design Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A:
Civil Engineering
Fuzzy Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Models
Site layout planning/
Planning/ Fuzzy particle swarm
2018 Song et al. [199] Single hybrid Project resource Automation in Construction
management optimization
management
Planning/ Fuzzy particle swarm
2014 Ma and Xu [181] Single hybrid Project scheduling Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
management optimization
Planning/ Fuzzy particle swarm
2012 Xu and Li [182] Single hybrid Site layout planning Automation in Construction
management optimization
Fuzzy Hybrid Ant Colony Systems Models
Evaluation/ Abbasianjahromi et al.
2014 Single hybrid Fuzzy ant colony systems Project team development Project Management Journal
assessment [22]
Planning/
2014 Sambhoo et al. [183] Single hybrid Fuzzy ant colony systems Project plan selection Applied Soft Computing
management
Planning/
2011 Kalhor et al. [186] Single hybrid Fuzzy ant colony systems Time-cost tradeoff Automation in Construction
management
Others Fuzzy Hybrid Optimization Models
Evaluation/
2018 Zhang and Guan [187] Single hybrid Fuzzy bow-tie analysis Project risk management Journal of Management in Engineering
assessment
Planning/ Cheng and Prayogo fuzzy teaching–learning
2017 Single hybrid Structural design-beam Engineering with Computers
management [175] optimization
Planning/ ShangGuan et al. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
2016 Single hybrid Fuzzy pareto set Infrastructure planning
management [179] the Transportation Research Board
Fuzzy linear Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Performance 2016 Bakry et al. [172] Single hybrid Project scheduling
programming Management

values predicted by fuzzy hybrid model, and achieve high optimization
effectiveness and efficiency [5,39,40]. Specifically, fuzzy hybrid ma­
chine learning techniques applied to prediction problems are required to
have the ability to achieve high accuracy in classification and predic­
tion, capture uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs, produce low
training and testing errors in classification outcomes, and produce the
least root-mean-square error and/or mean absolute error in prediction
outcomes. In evaluation/assessment problems, fuzzy hybrid techniques
need the ability to obtain high validity. In planning/management, pro­
cess modeling, system modeling, and performance problems, the
selected technique must have the ability to achieve high optimization
effectiveness and efficiency and capture uncertainty and vagueness of
model outputs.
5.1.2. Data availability
Data availability requires techniques with the ability to model highly
dimensional and complex data, accommodate a mix of quantitative and
qualitative inputs, capture subjectivity and vagueness, and be applicable
to CEM research with advanced technologies (e.g., BIM, GIS, VR, sen­
sors, modular construction) [10,40,81]. This criterion is essential in
every fuzzy hybrid application in construction (fuzzy machine learning,
fuzzy MCDM, fuzzy optimization, and fuzzy simulation), because the
underlying purpose of integrating fuzzy logic with standard modeling
and computing methods is to capitalize on the strength of fuzzy hybrid
techniques to handle subjective uncertainty and linguistically expressed
information from input variables. Prediction problems require fuzzy
hybrid techniques to model highly dimensional and complex data,
accommodate a mix of quantitative and qualitative inputs, and capture
uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs. Evaluation/assessment
problems require applied fuzzy hybrid techniques that can accommo­
date subjective judgment and preferences of multiple decision makers
and model a large number of parameters. Planning/management prob­
lems require fuzzy hybrid techniques that can model a large number of
parameters and capture uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs. In
process modeling and system modeling problems, fuzzy hybrid tech­
niques need the capability to capture uncertainty and vagueness of
model outputs and model a large number of parameters. Finally, per­
formance problems require techniques with the ability to accommodate
subjective judgment and preferences of multiple decision makers.
5.1.3. Computational complexity
Computational complexity refers to the variety of algorithm mathe­
matics and number of iterations required to perform data training and
different types of analyses [10,68]. The complexity of different algo­
rithms in fuzzy hybrid techniques requires techniques with the ability to
model a large number of parameters (high dimensionality), perform
scenario and sensitivity analyses, capture dynamic systems and re­
lationships, avoid local minima trapping, perform trend analysis and
pattern recognition in predictive models (e.g., time series), and perform
need analysis [37,40]. Similar to data availability, computational

12
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

Table 7 the ability to perform trend analysis, pattern recognition in predictive

Selection criteria for applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM. models, and scenario and sensitivity analyses.
Selection Criteria Specific Selection Criteria Reference
Category 5.1.4. Interpretability
• Ability to capture uncertainty Interpretability is the degree to which outcomes of fuzzy hybrid
and vagueness of model applications are understandable [10,40]. This subjective property in­
outputs cludes degrees of transparency and the ability to prioritize available
• Ability to obtain high validity alternatives for determining the optimal option. Most applications of
• Ability to produce low
training and testing errors
fuzzy hybrid techniques in construction have limitations in their ability
(classification accuracy) to obtain a high interpretability due to the completeness in modeling
• Ability to produce the least [4] [5] [7] [10] [28] [37] and computing formulation. Interpretability is critical to some con­
Accuracy root-mean-square error and/ [38] [39] [40] [58] [68] struction problems, including evaluation/assessment, planning/man­
or mean absolute error be­ [97] [150] [190] [193]
agement, process modeling, and performance problems. Fuzzy hybrid
tween the target values and
the values predicted by fuzzy techniques applied to evaluation/assessment problems needs to also be
hybrid model (prediction capable of prioritizing available alternatives for determining the optimal
accuracy) solution [37]. On the other hand, CEM researchers implementing fuzzy
• Ability to achieve high hybrid techniques in prediction problems usually seek techniques that
optimization effectiveness
and efficiency
produce high interpretability without compromising accuracy of the
• Ability to model highly modeling outcomes.
dimensional and complex
data 5.1.5. Processing ability
• Ability to accommodate a mix
Processing ability of fuzzy hybrid techniques is defined based on
of quantitative and qualitative [5] [8] [9] [32] [35] [37]
inputs [38] [39] [40] [53] [66] their convergence and computing speeds in modeling and producing
Data availability outcomes in different analyses [10,12]. For instance, this criterion can
• Ability to capture subjectivity [81] [158] [189] [191]
and vagueness [192] represent how fast the convergence speeds of fuzzy hybrid machine
• Applicable to CEM research learning techniques are in training and testing data [40,68]. Processing
with advanced technologies
ability can be justified based on the amount of time required for training
(e.g., BIM, GIS, VR, sensors,
modular construction) and testing data with fuzzy hybrid machine learning [10] and the
• Ability to model a large memory requirements for processing an iteration to optimize the pa­
number of parameters (high rameters with fuzzy hybrid optimization [19]. This criterion is common
dimensionality)
for fuzzy hybrid applications in processing modeling and performance.
• Ability to perform scenario
and sensitivity analyses Specifically, CEM researchers have applied fuzzy hybrid simulation
• Ability to capture dynamic (FMCS, FDES, FSD, and FABM) techniques in modeling construction
[6] [7] [10] [30] [33]
Computational
systems and relationships
[37] [38] [40] [48] [50]
processes [5]. In other cases, some fuzzy hybridizations with ANNs,
• Ability to avoid local minima including NFS techniques and fuzzy neural networks, also prioritize the
complexity [68] [71] [81] [115]
trapping
[189] [191] [193] computational speeds of fuzzification, inference, and defuzzification
• Ability to perform trend
analysis and pattern processes [12]. Processing ability is highly recommended in selecting
recognition in predictive automated fuzzy hybrid techniques to quickly produce modeling
models (e.g., time series) outcomes.
• Ability to perform need
analysis
• Transparency
5.1.6. Implementation complexity
• Ability to prioritize available [8] [10] [37] [38] [40] Implementation complexity, or feasibility of model development,
Interpretability
alternatives for determining [69] [123] [149] [192] refers to the ease of applying the fuzzy hybrid techniques to solve spe­
the optimal option cific CEM problems. For example, fuzzy clustering techniques can be
• Fast convergence and [10] [24] [26] [40] [68]
Processing ability easily implemented using various pre-defined functions/packages in R
analyzing speeds [71] [158] [190]
• Availability of commercial programming language [14,86]. However, other fuzzy hybrid machine
Implementation
software packages, open- [14] [68] [86] [189] learning techniques, such as population-based NFS, require the use of
complexity
source coding, and self-coding comprehensive coding skills or commercial software packages [10,68].
Implementation complexity involves availability of commercial soft­
ware packages, open-source coding, and self-coding. The decision to
complexity is required in all applications of fuzzy hybrid techniques in apply a fuzzy hybrid technique can depend on how complicated it is to
CEM research. In prediction problems, fuzzy hybrid machine learning develop and implement that technique [189]. Implementation
and optimization techniques are required to be capable of performing complexity occurs in all CEM application areas, including prediction,
trend analysis and pattern recognition in predictive models (e.g., time evaluation/assessment, planning/management, process modeling, sys­
series) and modeling a large number of parameters (high dimension­ tem modeling, and performance. Applications of fuzzy machine learning
ality). Evaluation/assessment problems require fuzzy hybrid techniques techniques, such as fuzzy clustering, NFS, fuzzy neural networks, and
with the ability to perform need analysis, capture complex interdepen­ fuzzy Bayesian networks, have low implementation complexity since a
dence amongst factors, and perform a mix of qualitative and quantita­ variety of computerized functions and commercial software packages
tive data analysis. Planning/management problems need techniques exist and can be used in their development. Similarly, fuzzy simulation
with the ability to model a large number of parameters. Process techniques, including FMCS, FDES, FSD, and FABM, are developed with
modeling and system modeling problems require techniques having the various computer-based applications and software packages. On the
ability to avoid local minima trapping, capture dynamic systems and other hand, most current fuzzy MCDM and optimization techniques rely
relationships among variables, model a large number of parameters, and on sophisticated formulations and development processes, so they often
perform scenario and sensitivity analyses. Fuzzy hybrid techniques obtain a high level of implementation complexity.
applied to performance problems require fuzzy hybrid techniques with

13
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064

5.2. Suitability of fuzzy hybrid techniques to solve construction problems
Based on the detailed content analysis of 255 fuzzy hybrid studies
across six CEM application areas, this study determined the suitability of
fuzzy hybrid techniques to solve problems within specific CEM appli­
cation areas. Each CEM application area consists of a set of specific se­
lection criteria derived from the six categories shown in Table 7. For
example, fuzzy hybrid techniques selected to solve prediction problems
need to satisfy a set of specific selection criteria including classification
accuracy, prediction accuracy, implementation complexity, and the
ability to perform trend analysis and pattern recognition in predictive
models (e.g., time series), accommodate a mix of quantitative and
qualitative inputs, model highly dimensional and complex data, model a
large number of parameters, and capture uncertainty and vagueness of
model outputs. In this study, the appropriateness of a given fuzzy hybrid
technique to solve problems within a particular CEM application area
was assessed based on the degree to which it satisfies the specific se­
lection criteria within that area. A thorough analysis of selected fuzzy
hybrid studies was performed to determine the degree of suitability of
fuzzy hybrid techniques for CEM problems, which was described in
terms of the linguistic assessments expressed as “High,” “Moderate,” and
“Low.” For instance, in evaluation/assessment problems, the majority of
fuzzy MCDM techniques (e.g., fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy VIKOR,
fuzzy PROMETHEE, fuzzy ELECTRE) have the ability to prioritize

Table 8
Selection checklist for fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research.
CEM Application Specific Selection Criteria Fuzzy Hybrid Techniques* Reference
Category
Optimi- Machine MCDM Simu-
zation Learning lation

Ability to perform trend analysis and pattern recognition in predictive models [81] [191]
High
(e.g., time series) [194]
Classification accuracy High [10] [14] [40]
Prediction accuracy High [10] [40]
Ability to accommodate a mix of quantitative and qualitative inputs Mod. High [38] [194]
Prediction Ability to model highly dimensional and complex data High High [7] [10]
Ability to model a large number of parameters High High [4] [5] [37]
Ability to capture uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs Mod. High [7] [10]
Applicable to CEM research with advanced technologies (e.g., BIM, GIS, VR,
High [1] [29]
sensors, modular construction)
Implementation complexity High Low [189]
Ability to perform need analysis High [10] [40]
Ability to prioritize available alternatives for determining the optimal option High [5] [37]
Ability to capture complex interdependence amongst factors High [37]
Mix of qualitative and quantitative data analysis Low Low High Low [37] [194]
Ability to accommodate subjective judgment and preferences of multiple
Mod. High High Mod. [7] [39] [193]
decision makers
Evaluation/
Ability to achieve high transparency (i.e., interpretability) without lessening
Assessment Mod. Mod. High Mod. [10] [191]
accuracy
Ability to obtain high validity Low Mod. High Mod. [37] [193]
Ability to model a large number of parameters Mod. High High Mod. [37]
Applicable to CEM research with advanced technologies (e.g., BIM, GIS, VR,
Low Low High [1] [28]
sensors, modular construction)
Implementation complexity High Low Mod. Low [189]
Ability to achieve high optimization effectiveness and efficiency High [5]
Ability to achieve high transparency (i.e., interpretability) without lessening
High High High [10] [191]
accuracy
Planning/ Ability to model a large number of parameters High High High [7] [37]
Management Ability to capture uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs Mod. High High [7] [10]
Applicable to CEM research with advanced technologies (e.g., BIM, GIS, VR,
Mod. Mod. [1] [30] [195]
sensors, and modular construction)
Implementation complexity High Low Mod. [189]
Ability to avoid local minima trapping High [68]
Ability to capture dynamic systems and relationships among variables High [5] [190]
Processing and computational speeds High High [68] [192]
Ability to capture uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs High High [7] [10]
Process modeling
Ability to achieve high transparency (i.e., interpretability) without lessening
High Mod. [10] [191]
accuracy
Ability to model a large number of parameters High Mod. [7] [37]
Implementation complexity Low Low [189]
Ability to achieve high optimization effectiveness and efficiency High [5]
Ability to avoid local minima trapping High [10] [68]
Ability to capture dynamic systems and relationships among variables High [7] [39]
System modeling
Ability to perform scenario and sensitivity analyses Low High [6] [38]
Ability to model a large number of parameters High Mod. [7] [37]
Implementation complexity Low Low [189]
Ability to perform trend analysis and pattern recognition in predictive models
High [81] [194]
(e.g., time series)
Ability to achieve high transparency (i.e., interpretability) without lessening
High High [7] [10] [40]
accuracy
Performance Processing and computational speeds High High High [10] [68]
Ability to accommodate subjective judgment and preferences of multiple
Mod. High High Mod. [7] [39]
decision makers
Ability to perform scenario and sensitivity analyses Low High [6] [38]
Implementation complexity High Low Mod. Low [189]
*
Mod. = Moderate

14
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
available alternatives for determining the optimal option [5,37,40];
therefore, a “High” linguistic expression was given for fuzzy MCDM for
that specific selection criterion. In planning/management problems,
although most fuzzy machine learning techniques, such as ANFIS, fuzzy
ANNs, fuzzy Bayesian belief network, and fuzzy pattern recognition,
have the ability to model a large number of parameters and capture
uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs, represented by a “High” in
each criterion, only fuzzy c-means clustering was found with uncom­
plicated algorithm and ease of use [5,10,189]. As a result, a “Low” lin­
guistic expression was given to fuzzy machine learning in the
implementation complexity criterion. While evaluation/assessment
problems often require the ability to achieve high transparency (i.e.,
interpretability) without lessening accuracy, fuzzy hybrid optimization
techniques, such as fuzzy particle swarm optimization, fuzzy ant colony
systems, fuzzy optimum system hierarchy analysis, and adaptive fuzzy
Pareto set, can only solve the problem with various assumptions made to
establish the constraints and objective functions [20,22,177,178,179].
However, other fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques, such as fuzzy
linear programming and fuzzy evolutionary algorithms, do not require a
comprehensive set of assumptions in evaluation/assessment problems in
the current CEM literature. Therefore, a “Moderate” linguistic expres­
sion was given to fuzzy hybrid optimization in evaluation/assessment
problems. Similarly, the suitability of given fuzzy hybrid techniques to
CEM problems was determined according to specific selection criteria in
each CEM application category. Table 8 summarizes a selection checklist
for four categories of fuzzy hybrid techniques (optimization, machine
learning, MCDM, and simulation) across six CEM applications areas
(prediction, evaluation/assessment, planning/management, process
modeling, system modeling, and performance) with relevant references
supporting the linguistic terms.
Because of their ability to perform trend analysis and pattern
recognition in predictive models (e.g., time series) and obtain high ac­
curacy in classification and prediction modeling outcomes [10,40],
fuzzy machine learning techniques, including NFS techniques, fuzzy
clustering, fuzzy pattern recognition, and fuzzy Bayesian networks, are
highly recommended for solving practical prediction problems, which
comprise 19% of construction problems. Fuzzy machine learning tech­
niques are also highly capable of modeling highly dimensional and
complex data and handling a large number of parameters. Compared
with fuzzy hybrid optimization, fuzzy machine learning techniques
perform better in accommodating a mix of quantitative and qualitative
inputs and capturing uncertainty and vagueness of model outputs. Fuzzy
hybrid machine learning techniques are also applicable in CEM research
with advanced technologies (e.g., BIM, sensors). For example, Lin and
Huang [32] utilized common fuzzy classification machine learning
techniques, including decision tree (DT), support vector machine (SVM),
and k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), to filter and assess irrelevant design
clashes detected by BIM at an early stage and increase accuracy of final
construction documents. The incorporation of multiple supervised fuzzy
machine learning techniques results in a BIM-based automatic filtering
system that identifies irrelevant design clashes in order to avoid po­
tential delays and incurred costs. Ouma and Hahn [29] integrated fuzzy
c-means clustering techniques and imaging accelerometer sensors to
support pothole detection on asphalt pavement in highway construction
projects. Such integration can provide highway agencies with an
optimal compromise between cost, accuracy, and applicability in
detecting potholes on asphalt pavement. Razavi and Haas [196]
implemented wireless sensors with a fuzzy machine learning technique
to improve automated materials tracking and locating on construction
sites. Their results showed that applications of sensors-based fuzzy
inference system can provide accurate location estimation and move­
ment detection to assist project managers with efficiently monitoring
and planning construction activities. In follow-up research, Razavi and
Haas [197] continuously promoted the integration of tracking sensors
with fuzzy machine learning hybrid techniques to improve construction
productivity. Their study showed that a wide range of wireless sensors,
15
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
including radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponders and
readers, RFID with GPS chips, ultrasound, GPS receivers, and infrared,
can be used to produce data for models utilizing fuzzy inference system.
Fuzzy MCDM and fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques are not found to
have been implemented in this application area.
In evaluation/assessment problems (48% of construction problems),
fuzzy hybrid MCDM techniques are highly recommended because of
their ability to perform need analysis, prioritize available alternatives
for determining the optimal option, and capture complexity and inter­
dependence amongst selection criteria. Compared to fuzzy hybrid ma­
chine learning, fuzzy hybrid simulation, and fuzzy hybrid optimization,
fuzzy MCDM techniques achieve higher transparency (i.e., interpret­
ability) and validity without lessening accuracy. Although their devel­
opment and implementations are more complicated than fuzzy hybrid
machine learning and fuzzy simulation, fuzzy MCDM techniques are
recommended for evaluation/assessment problems. Fuzzy MCDM are
also applicable in CEM research on advanced technologies (e.g., BIM,
GIS, VR, modular construction). For instance, Chen et al. [27] developed
a semi-automatic, image-based BIM model using fuzzy multi-attribute
utility theory (MAUT) for evaluating sustainable development
throughout construction project lifecycles. Fuzzy MAUT algorithms help
the developed model recognize structure object types and the corre­
sponding materials used to support later assessments in the operation
and maintenance phase. Fazeli et al. [121] incorporated BIM and fuzzy
TOPSIS to optimize selection of sustainable building components at
early conceptual design stages. BIM-based fuzzy TOPSIS derives out­
comes for decision making to improve sustainability of building con­
struction based on design, quality, and economic factors. Figueiredo
et al. [15] also implemented a BIM-based fuzzy AHP approach to support
selection of sustainable construction materials for ensuring the devel­
opment of buildings’ lifecycles. Investigating the use of BIM in CEM,
Mirhosseini et al. [128] used fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation
laboratory-ANP (DEMATEL-ANP) to depict the cause-and-effect re­
lationships among leadership competencies required for BIM imple­
mentations and weight them. Turskis et al. [30] developed a GIS-based
model using fuzzy AHP and weighted aggregated sum product assess­
ment (WASPAS) to support selection of shopping center construction
sites. Fuzzy MCDM techniques (e.g., fuzzy Delphi, fuzzy TOPSIS) are
also utilized with VR-based applications for supporting decision making
in interior design for office buildings [28]. Fuzzy AHP, another fuzzy
MCDM technique, is also suggested for assessing project risks in modular
construction. Fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques are being
considered more in modular construction because they can accommo­
date subjective judgment and preferences of multiple decision makers
and model a large number of parameters with a low implementation
complexity [198].
For planning/management problems (20% of construction prob­
lems), fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques are recommended, because
they can achieve high optimization effectiveness and efficiency
compared to fuzzy hybrid machine learning and fuzzy MCDM tech­
niques. In addition, fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques are applicable
to CEM research with BIM applications. For example, Marzouk and
Abdelakder [185] implemented a hybrid fuzzy multi-objective non-
dominated sorting genetic algorithm to compute several types of con­
struction emissions (e.g., greenhouse gas footprint, sulfur dioxide) and
fuzzy TOPSIS to select the most sustainable construction material al­
ternatives based on overall project emissions and total used primary
energy. Moon et al. [195] developed a BIM-based computer system
using fuzzy generic algorithms for construction scheduling simulation to
minimize overlaps in construction activities and improve projects’
operational performance. Their results can help project managers
actively monitor and evaluate project activities with optimal schedule
alternatives visualized in a BIM-based four-dimensional computer-aided
design environment. Where CEM researchers cannot overcome the high
implementation complexity of fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques,
both fuzzy hybrid machine learning and fuzzy MCDM are also suitable to
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
planning/management problems because of their ability to achieve high
transparency (i.e., interpretability) without lessening accuracy, model a
large number of parameters, and capture uncertainty and vagueness of
model outputs with low or moderate implementation complexity. Fuzzy
hybrid simulation techniques are not found to have been implemented
in this application area.
In process modeling problems (7% of construction problems), fuzzy
hybrid simulation techniques are recommended because of their ability
to capture dynamic systems and relationships among input variables and
to avoid local minima trapping. However, fuzzy hybrid machine
learning techniques perform better than fuzzy hybrid simulation tech­
niques in such problems, having higher transparency (i.e., interpret­
ability) without lessening accuracy and having the ability to model a
large number of parameters (high dimensionality). If CEM researchers
and practitioners seek the ability to capture uncertainty and vagueness
of model outputs and to have fast processing and computational speeds,
both fuzzy machine learning and fuzzy simulation techniques are suit­
able. These fuzzy hybrid techniques also obtain a low implementation
complexity. Fuzzy MCDM and fuzzy optimization techniques have not
been found in the application area of process modeling.
Similarly, in system modeling problems (2% of construction prob­
lems), fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques are highly recommended
because of their ability to achieve high optimization effectiveness and
efficiency, avoid local minima trapping, capture dynamic systems and
relationships among variables, and perform scenario and sensitivity
analyses. If CEM researchers in this application area seek to handle a
large number of parameters, fuzzy hybrid machine learning may be a
better choice than fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques. Fuzzy MCDM and
fuzzy optimization techniques are not been found to have been imple­
mented in this application area.
In performance problems (4% of construction problems), fuzzy ma­
chine learning techniques are recommended because of their ability to
perform trend analysis and pattern recognition in predictive models (e.
g., time series), achieve high transparency (i.e., interpretability) without
lessening accuracy, have fast processing and computational speeds, and
achieve low implementation complexity. Fuzzy MCDM techniques are
also recommended for accommodating subjective judgment and pref­
erences of multiple decision makers and to achieve high transparency (i.
e., interpretability) without lessening accuracy. Fuzzy hybrid simulation
techniques are suitable for prioritizing a model’s ability to perform
scenario and sensitivity analyses, obtain fast processing and computa­
tional speeds, and achieve low implementation complexity.
In summary, fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques are recom­
mended for solving problems in the prediction and performance appli­
cation areas, because these techniques have the ability to perform trend
analysis and pattern recognition in predictive models (e.g., time series)
and obtain high classification and prediction accuracy. Additionally,
CEM applications with sensors and BIM can use fuzzy hybrid machine
learning to handle a large volume of data. Fuzzy hybrid MCDM tech­
niques are recommended in the evaluation/assessment application area
because they are capable of performing need analysis, prioritizing
available alternatives for determining the optimal option, and capturing
complex interdependence amongst criteria. Fuzzy MCDM techniques are
also found in CEM research with BIM, GIS, VR, and modular construc­
tion. Fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques are recommended in the
planning/management application area, because they can achieve high
optimization effectiveness and efficiency. Fuzzy hybrid simulation
techniques are recommended for solving problems within the process
and system modeling application areas, because they can avoid local
minima trapping as well as capture dynamic systems and relationships
among input variables.
6. Conclusions and future research
This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of applications of fuzzy
hybrid techniques in CEM research. Fuzzy hybrid techniques have been
16
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
increasingly used in CEM research because of their ability to simulta­
neously capture multiple uncertainties in construction problems, such as
subjectivity, vagueness, and incompleteness, to augment existing
modeling and computing efforts. Although they have been widely used
in many CEM application areas to solve complex problems involving
incompleteness of data, vagueness, and subjective uncertainty, no
detailed content analysis has previously been conducted regarding an
integrated categorization and itemization of fuzzy hybrid technique
applications in solving specific CEM problems. Therefore, this paper
provides a systematic literature review of fuzzy hybrid techniques used
in CEM research publications from highly reputed CEM journals from
2004 to 2021. The content analysis results show that fuzzy hybrid
techniques applied in CEM can be classified into four categories: fuzzy
hybrid machine learning, fuzzy hybrid MCDM, fuzzy hybrid simulation,
and fuzzy hybrid optimization. This paper also matches individual fuzzy
hybrid techniques to specific CEM application areas, comprising pre­
diction, evaluation/assessment, planning/management, process
modeling, system modeling, and performance management. The results
of this study show that fuzzy hybrid machine learning and fuzzy hybrid
MCDM are widely implemented in CEM research. Specifically, fuzzy
hybrid machine learning techniques are mostly used to develop pre­
dictive models and deal with forecasting problems in CEM research.
Fuzzy hybrid MCDM techniques are often selected for supporting
decision-making processes in evaluation/assessment applications. Fuzzy
hybrid optimization techniques are commonly used to handle optimi­
zation problems and improve planning and management of construction
projects. Fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques are essentially used to
enhance process and system modeling, providing CEM researchers and
industry practitioners with different decision-making scenarios.
Results from the detailed content analysis show that each integrated
category of fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research involves various
hybridizations of fuzzy logic with other standard modeling and
computing techniques. Single-hybrid fuzzy techniques, which are hy­
bridization of fuzzy logic with a standard technique, include fuzzy
particle swarm optimization, FANP, FSD, and FMCS. Multi-hybrid fuzzy
techniques, which are hybridization of fuzzy logic with two or more
standard techniques, include fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS, fuzzy Monte-Carlo
ABM, and FANP-DEMATEL. The majority of fuzzy hybrid machine
learning techniques consist of NFS (hybridization of fuzzy logic and
ANNs) for prediction/forecasting problems and fuzzy clustering for
classification problems. Researchers have also used some fuzzy hybrid
machine learning techniques, such as fuzzy c-means clustering and fuzzy
pattern recognition, to analyze large datasets collected via sensors and
wearable devices in construction projects. Fuzzy MCDM techniques,
including fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS, and fuzzy VIKOR, have been widely
applied in evaluation/assessment problems that involve a large amount
of subjective uncertainty, ambiguity, and incomplete data from various
decision makers and/or stakeholders. Fuzzy MCDM techniques have
also been used in studies involving advanced technologies, such as BIM,
GIS, VR, and modular construction, to support different decision-making
scenarios under uncertainty. Fuzzy hybrid optimization techniques,
including fuzzy evolutionary algorithms, fuzzy particle swarm optimi­
zation, and fuzzy ant colony optimization, are mostly applied in plan­
ning/management problems because of their ability to provide efficient
optimization outcomes of time-cost trade-offs and resource usage. Fuzzy
hybrid simulation techniques, such as FMCS, FDES, FSD, and FABM,
have been used in modeling and simulating construction systems and
processes.
This study also identified and determined common categories of
selection criteria, including accuracy, data availability, computational
complexity, interpretability, processing ability, and implementation
complexity, for fuzzy hybrid applications in CEM research. Each of these
categories comprises a list of specific selection criteria required for
particular CEM application areas. From the specific selection criteria
within each CEM application area, this study examined suitable fuzzy
hybrid techniques to solve particular CEM problems. Based on the study
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
results, fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques (e.g., NFS, fuzzy
clustering) are recommended for developing predictive modeling to
forecast and monitor construction productivity, project cost manage­
ment, and construction structural and materials testing. Fuzzy hybrid
MCDM techniques are recommended for tackling decision-making
problems that involve multiple decision makers and/or stakeholders in
project delivery method selection, risk assessment and management,
construction material selection, project plan selection, supplier selec­
tion, project team development, sustainability analysis, and site layout
planning. Fuzzy hybrid simulation techniques are recommended for
capturing the high dynamism and random uncertainty in process and
system modeling problems, such as project scheduling, project resource
management, risk management, and construction productivity. Fuzzy
hybrid optimization techniques (e.g., fuzzy evolutionary algorithms,
fuzzy particle swarm optimization, fuzzy ant colony optimization) are
recommended for solving complex multi-objective optimization prob­
lems, such as project time-cost trade-offs, site layout planning, supply
chain management, and project scheduling. The results of this study can
assist CEM researchers and industry practitioners in selecting appro­
priate fuzzy hybrid techniques for solving problems that involve
advanced technologies, including BIM, GIS, VR, sensors, and modular
construction.
This study makes several contributions to the body of knowledge by
providing a state-of-the-art review of existing fuzzy hybrid techniques
utilized in CEM research. First, the systematic review demonstrates the
capabilities of fuzzy hybrid techniques to overcome limitations of some
standard techniques in solving complex construction problems.
Accordingly, the results of this study determined limitations of standard
modeling and computing methods, such as machine learning, MCDM,
simulation, and optimization, in solving practical construction prob­
lems, and thus hybridization of fuzzy logic with standard methods is
recommended. Second, the content analysis results provide detailed and
integrated categorization of fuzzy hybrid techniques across different
CEM application areas. Additionally, the categorization of fuzzy hybrid
techniques matching with specific construction application areas –
prediction, evaluation/assessment, planning/management, process
modeling, system modeling, and project performance – helps illustrate
the capabilities of fuzzy hybrid techniques to efficiently and effectively
solve practical construction problems. Finally, this study identifies and
develops selection criteria that can help guide CEM researchers and
industry practitioners in choosing and examining the applicability of
each fuzzy hybrid technique category to given practical construction
problems.
This study has several limitations. First, the number of articles ob­
tained from construction journals for each fuzzy hybrid category was
uneven because of different usages and the commonness of fuzzy hybrid
techniques in CEM research. For example, fewer studies have concen­
trated on fuzzy hybrid simulation than other fuzzy hybrid techniques (e.
g., machine learning, MCDM, and optimization) since implementations
of FDES and FABM are still in their infancy in CEM. In addition, some
articles related to fuzzy hybrid techniques published in journals that
were not included the reviewed databases might not be collected and
included in the content analysis. Therefore, some studies focusing on
fuzzy hybrid techniques in other discipline areas, such as storm water
design, infrastructure planning and management, pavement design,
structural design, structural analysis, structural deterioration and dam­
age detection, sustainability, and project management, were also
incorporated in the analysis to maximize the coverage of collected ar­
ticles and secure the reliability and validity of outcomes from the con­
tent analysis. Discussions regarding the use of fuzzy hybrid techniques in
the two CEM application categories of performance and system
modeling are limited because few studies are available in the current
construction literature. Second, the proposed six categories of perfor­
mance evaluation criteria – data availability, processing ability,
computational complexity, interpretability, accuracy, and implementa­
tion complexity – were obtained from a content analysis that included
17
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
other fuzzy hybrid applications in other civil engineering domains. As a
result, although the selection criteria (Table 7) and the selection
checklist for fuzzy hybrid techniques in CEM research (Table 8) can
assist researchers in selecting an appropriate fuzzy hybrid technique
according to their experience and the purpose of the model, the selection
criteria should be considered as recommendations only and require
further validations in future research.
Future research directions may be made based on potential im­
provements in each category of fuzzy hybrid techniques and their
applicability to CEM studies that involve advanced technologies in
construction. Performance of fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques
(e.g., fuzzy clustering, NSF) can be improved by incorporating other AI
(e.g., pattern recognition, data mining) and population-based optimi­
zation algorithms (e.g., evolutionary algorithms, particle swarm opti­
mization, firefly algorithm). Specifically, fuzzy clustering can be
incorporated with pattern recognition to improve a model’s ability to
provide valid inferences and support decision-making problems in CEM
research. The integrated fuzzy Bayesian inference system can be a robust
decision-aid model with the ability to handle linguistically expressed
information and subjective uncertainty along with updating new infor­
mation in model development. In addition, fuzzy clustering can be
combined with other data mining techniques, such as feature selection
and/or hybrid feature selection, to reduce the dimensionality of pre­
dictive models. NFS models can be enhanced by incorporating evolu­
tionary algorithms to optimize and tune model parameters. Results of
this study show that most current NFS models are tied with type-1 fuzzy
sets; therefore, future research can attempt to improve performance of
NFS models by incorporating type-2 fuzzy sets (a more generalized form
of type-1 fuzzy sets) that can handle more uncertainty in the modeling
process. NFS models can also be integrated with simulation techniques,
such as Monte Carlo simulation and system dynamics, to enhance the
performance of predictive models for estimating construction duration
in earthwork operations and tunneling projects as well as forecasting
time series trends in construction projects (e.g., renewable energy, oil
price). Moreover, using machine learning techniques can also help fuzzy
hybrid simulation techniques, such as FSD and FABM, overcome the
limitation of data availability. Although fuzzy hybrid MCDM techniques
are capable of simultaneously capturing subjectivity, multiple objec­
tives, and randomness of construction problems, they are unable to
accommodate the interrelationships among model variables and the
high dynamism of construction processes. Therefore, some fuzzy hybrid
simulation techniques, such as FSD, FDES, and FMCS, can be incorpo­
rated with fuzzy MCDM in future studies. For example, FSD can be used
with fuzzy AHP in supporting maintenance decision making in highway
road projects by assessing the evolution of road conditions and per­
forming MCDM. Based on the aforementioned suggestions from this
paper, future research can develop more robust models with greater
capacity to tackle many facets of construction problems, including
incompleteness of data, vagueness, often-conflicting requirements,
subjective uncertainty, and random uncertainty.
Fuzzy hybrid techniques have been increasingly used to support se­
lection of advanced technologies (e.g., BIM, modular construction) in
construction as well as modeling and computing the data collected using
cutting-edge technologies (e.g., sensors, GIS, VR). Most collected studies
related to advanced technologies in construction involve the majority of
fuzzy MCDM techniques implemented in evaluation/assessment and
planning/management application areas. Future development and
deployment of fuzzy hybrid applications in CEM can be made based on
the promising integration of fuzzy hybrid techniques with advanced
technologies, alternative reality technologies, and emerging innovations
such as big data analytics. For example, it is possible that applications of
BIM-based fuzzy optimization models can be used in construction to
support high-level visualization and assessment of planning and man­
agement issues. Although there is a lack of GIS-based studies using fuzzy
hybrid techniques in CEM, the use of fuzzy MCDM and optimization
techniques in a GIS environment to support construction site layout and
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
planning in promising. GIS-based fuzzy hybrid approaches (e.g., fuzzy
MCDM, fuzzy hybrid optimization) are promising tools for handling
incomplete, imprecise, and subjective uncertainties in decision-making
and optimization processes for construction site planning and manage­
ment. The current literature also indicates future opportunities in up­
trend integrations of fuzzy hybrid techniques with big data analytics. To
accommodate large datasets, fuzzy hybrid machine learning techniques
are promising tools because of their ability to develop fast and sufficient
modeling in predicting future outcomes. As a subset of AI, fuzzy machine
learning can quickly train a machine to learn and automatically produce
models that can analyze large and complex datasets. This future direc­
tion can help improve modeling and analysis efforts in labor produc­
tivity, performance, health and safety behaviors, and planning practices
with big data technologies, such as the internet of things (IoT) and
sensors. Fuzzy hybrid techniques can help researchers investigate hid­
den patterns, correlations, and other insights related to workers’ ergo­
nomics, labor health conditions, productivity, performance, and safety
risks. Future research trends in construction may include hybridization
of fuzzy logic with other AI methods, such as natural language pro­
cessing and Markov decision process for complex CEM problems that
require heavy computational intelligence.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Chair in Strategic
Construction Modeling and Delivery (NSERC IRCPJ 428226–15), which
is held by Dr. Aminah Robinson Fayek.
References
[1] T. Tan, G. Mills, E. Papadonikolaki, Z. Liu, Combining multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) methods with building information modelling (BIM): a review,
Autom. Constr. 121 (2021), 103451, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2020.103451.
[2] K. Chatterjee, E. Zavadskas, J. Tamošaitienė, K. Adhikary, S. Kar, A hybrid MCDM
technique for risk management in construction projects, Symmetry 10 (2) (2018)
46, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10020046.
[3] X. Ning, L.Y. Ding, H.B. Luo, S.J. Qi, A multi-attribute model for construction site
layout using intuitionistic fuzzy logic, Autom. Constr. 72 (2016) 380–387,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.09.008.
[4] S. Kar, S. Das, P. Ghosh, Applications of neuro fuzzy systems: a brief review and
future outline, Appl. Soft Comput. 15 (2014) 243–259, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.asoc.2013.10.014.
[5] N. Gerami Seresht, R. Lourenzutti, A. Salah, A.R. Fayek, Overview of fuzzy hybrid
techniques in construction engineering and management, in: A.R. Fayek (Ed.),
Fuzzy Hybrid Computing in Construction Engineering and Management: Theory
and Applications, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK, 2018, pp. 37–107. ISBN 978-
1-7874-3869-9.
[6] J.N. Hooker, Hybrid modeling, in: Hybrid Optimization, Springer, New York, NY,
USA, 2011, pp. 11–62. ISBN 978-1-4419-1644-0.
[7] A.R. Fayek (Ed.), Fuzzy Hybrid Computing in Construction Engineering and
Management, 1st ed., Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, 2018,
pp. 37–107. ISBN 978-1-7874-3869-9.
[8] L. Suganthi, S. Iniyan, A. Samuel, Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy
systems: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48 (2015) 585–607, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.037.
[9] M. Islam, M. Nepal, A fuzzy-Bayesian model for risk assessment in power plant
projects, Proc. Comput. Sci. 100 (2016) 963–970, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2016.09.259.
[10] G. Tiruneh, A.R. Fayek, V. Sumati, Neuro-fuzzy systems in construction
engineering and management research, Autom. Constr. 119 (2020), 103348,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103348.
[11] C. Qi, H. Ly, L. Le, X. Yang, L. Guo, B. Pham, Improved strength prediction of
cemented paste backfill using a novel model based on adaptive neuro fuzzy
inference system and artificial bee colony, Constr. Build. Mater. 284 (17) (2021),
122857, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122857.
[12] E. Golafshani, A. Behnood, M. Arashpour, Predicting the compressive strength of
normal and high-performance concretes using ANN and ANFIS hybridized with
18
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
grey wolf optimizer, Constr. Build. Mater. 232 (2020), 117266, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117266.
[13] H. Madani, M. Kooshafar, M. Emadi, Compressive strength prediction of
nanosilica-incorporated cement mixtures using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system and artificial neural network models, Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 25
(3) (2020) 04020021, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000499.
[14] P. Nguyen, D. Tran, B. Lines, Fuzzy set theory approach to classify highway
project characteristics for delivery selection, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 146 (5)
(2020) 04020044, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001829.
[15] K. Figueiredo, R. Pierott, A. Hammad, A. Haddad, Sustainable material choice for
construction projects: a life cycle sustainability assessment framework based on
BIM and fuzzy-AHP, Build. Environ. 196 (2021), 107805, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107805.
[16] L. Beltrão, M. Carvalho, Prioritizing construction risks using fuzzy AHP in
Brazilian public enterprises, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 145 (2) (2019) 05018018,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001606.
[17] Y. Yang, J. Peng, C. Cai, J. Zhang, Improved interval evidence theory-based fuzzy
AHP approach for comprehensive condition assessment of long-span PSC
continuous box-girder bridges, J. Bridg. Eng. 24 (12) (2019) 04019113, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001494.
[18] S. Mete, F. Serin, N. Oz, M. Gul, A decision-support system based on Pythagorean
fuzzy VIKOR for occupational risk assessment of a natural gas pipeline
construction, J. Natural Gas Sci. Eng. 71 (2019), 102979, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jngse.2019.102979.
[19] M. Bagheri, B. Keshtegar, S. Zhu, D. Meng, J. Correia, A. De Jesus, Fuzzy
reliability analysis using genetic optimization algorithm combined with adaptive
descent chaos control, ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. 6 (2) (2020)
04020022, https://doi.org/10.1061/ajrua6.0001064.
[20] X. Song, L. Zhong, Z. Zhang, J. Xu, C. Shen, F. Peña-Mora, Multistakeholder
conflict minimization-based layout planning of construction temporary facilities,
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 32 (2) (2018) 04017080, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CP.1943-5487.0000725.
[21] H. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Jiao, X. He, B. Wang, Condition evaluation for existing
reinforced concrete bridge superstructure using fuzzy clustering improved by
particle swarm optimization, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 13 (7) (2017) 955–965,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1227854.
[22] H. Abbasianjahromi, H. Rajaie, E. Shakeri, F. Chokan, A new decision-making
model for subcontractor selection and its order allocation, Proj. Manag. J. 45 (1)
(2014) 55–66, https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21394.
[23] H. Etemadinia, M. Tavakolan, Using a hybrid system dynamics and interpretive
structural modeling for risk analysis of design phase of the construction projects,
Int. J. Constr. Manag. 21 (1) (2018) 93–112, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15623599.2018.1511235.
[24] M. Raoufi, A.R. Fayek, Fuzzy Monte Carlo agent-based simulation of construction
crew performance, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 146 (5) (2020) 04020041, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001826.
[25] M. Attarzadeh, D.K. Chua, M. Beer, E.L. Abbott, Fuzzy randomness simulation of
long-term infrastructure projects, ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. 3 (3)
(2017) 04017002, https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000902.
[26] N. Sadeghi, A.R. Fayek, N. Gerami Seresht, A fuzzy discrete event simulation
framework for construction applications: improving the simulation time
advancement, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (12) (2016), 04016071, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001195.
[27] L. Chen, Q. Lu, X. Zhao, A semi-automatic image-based object recognition system
for constructing as-is IFC BIM objects based on fuzzy-MAUT, Int. J. Constr.
Manag. (2019) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1615754.
[28] Y. Juan, H. Chi, H. Chen, Virtual reality-based decision support model for interior
design and decoration of an office building, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 28 (1)
(2019) 229–245, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-03-2019-0138.
[29] Y.O. Ouma, M. Hahn, Pothole detection on asphalt pavements from 2D-colour
pothole images using fuzzy c-means clustering and morphological reconstruction,
Autom. Constr. 83 (2017) 196–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2017.08.017.
[30] Z. Turskis, E. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, N. Kosareva, A hybrid model based
on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection, International J.
Comput. Commun. Control 10 (6) (2015) 113, https://doi.org/10.15837/
ijccc.2015.6.2078.
[31] A. Hoseini, S. Ghannadpour, S. Noori, M. Yazdani, Analysis of the influence of
building information modeling (BIM) on construction project management areas
of knowledge: a hybrid FANP-FVIKOR approach, Int. J. Indust. Eng. Product. Res.
30 (1) (2019) 57–92, https://doi.org/10.22068/ijiepr.30.1.57.
[32] W. Lin, Y. Huang, Filtering of irrelevant clashes detected by BIM software using a
hybrid method of rule-based reasoning and supervised machine learning, Appl.
Sci. 9 (24) (2019) 5324, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9245324.
[33] M. Rostamnezhad, F. Nasirzadeh, M. Khanzadi, M. Jarban, M. Ghayoumian,
Modeling social sustainability in construction projects by integrating system
dynamics and fuzzy-DEMATEL method: a case study of highway project, Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manag. 27 (7) (2020) 1595–1618, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-
01-2018-0031.
[34] E. Zarei, N. Khakzad, V. Cozzani, G. Reniers, Safety analysis of process systems
using fuzzy Bayesian network (FBN), J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 57 (2019) 7–16,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.10.011.
[35] T. Gebrehiwet, H. Luo, Risk level evaluation on construction project lifecycle
using fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and TOPSIS, Symmetry 11 (1) (2018) 12,
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11010012.
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
[36] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control. 8 (3) (1965) 338–353, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
[37] L. Chen, W. Pan, Review fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making in construction
management using a network approach, Appl. Soft Comput. 102 (2021), 107103,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107103.
[38] M. Islam, M. Nepal, M. Skitmore, M. Attarzadeh, Current research trends and
application areas of fuzzy and hybrid methods to the risk assessment of
construction projects, Adv. Eng. Inform. 33 (2017) 112–131, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aei.2017.06.001.
[39] D. Simić, I. Kovačević, V. Svirčević, S. Simić, 50 years of fuzzy set theory and
models for supplier assessment and selection: a literature review, J. Appl. Log. 24
(2017) 85–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2016.11.016.
[40] A.P. Chan, D.W. Chan, J.F. Yeung, Overview of the application of “fuzzy
techniques” in construction management research, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135
(11) (2009) 1241–1252, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000099.
[41] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Ann. Intern. Med.
151 (4) (2009) 264–269, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535.
[42] A. Booth, A. Sutton, D. Papaioannou, Systematic Approaches to a Successful
Literature Review, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016, pp. 36–55. ISBN 978-1-
4739-1245-8.
[43] R. Fellows, A. Liu, Research Methods for Construction, 3rd ed, Blackwell Science,
Oxford, UK, 2008, pp. 81–121. ISBN 140517790X.
[44] K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd ed.,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004, pp. 44–95. ISBN 9780761915454.
[45] PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide),
6th ed. Project Management Institute Inc., Newtown Square, PA, USA (2017),
ISBN 9781628251845, pp. 1–29.
[46] W. Yi, A.P. Chan, Critical review of labor productivity research in construction
journals, J. Manag. Eng. 30 (2) (2014) 214–225, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ME.1943-5479.0000194.
[47] A. Darko, A.P. Chan, Critical analysis of green building research trend in
construction journals, Habitat Int. 57 (2016) 53–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2016.07.001.
[48] S. Dastgheib, M. Feylizadeh, M. Bagherpour, A. Mahmoudi, Improving estimate at
completion (EAC) cost of construction projects using adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system (ANFIS), Can. J. Civ. Eng. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-
2020-0399.
[49] M. Rezaie, N. Sadighi, Prediction of slump and density of lightweight concretes
using ANFIS and linear regression, Int. J. Civil Eng. Technol. 8 (10) (2017)
1635–1648, http://paper.researchbib.com/view/paper/159716.
[50] M. Cheng, N. Hoang, A. Roy, Y. Wu, A novel time-depended evolutionary fuzzy
SVM inference model for estimating construction project at completion, Eng.
Appl. Artif. Intell. 25 (4) (2012) 744–752, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engappai.2011.09.022.
[51] A. Kumar, A. Pal, A. Vohra, S. Gupta, S. Manchanda, M. Dash, Construction of
capital procurement decision making model to optimize supplier selection using
Fuzzy Delphi and AHP-DEMATEL, Benchmarking 25 (5) (2018) 1528–1547,
https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-01-2017-0005.
[52] X. Song, J. Xu, C. Shen, F. Peña-Mora, Z. Zeng, A decision making system for
construction temporary facilities layout planning in large-scale construction
projects, International, J. Civ. Eng. 15 (2017) 333–353, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40999-016-0107-1.
[53] M. Raoufi, A.R. Fayek, Fuzzy agent-based modeling of construction crew
motivation and performance, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 32 (5) (2018) 04018035,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000777.
[54] T. Kazanasmaz, Fuzzy logic model to classify effectiveness of daylighting in an
office with a movable blind system, Build. Environ. 69 (2013) 22–34, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.07.011.
[55] D. Tran, M. Cheng, A. Pham, Using fuzzy clustering chaotic-based differential
evolution to solve multiple resources leveling in the multiple projects scheduling
problem, Alexandria Eng. J. 55 (2) (2016) 1541–1552, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aej.2016.03.038.
[56] M. Cheng, D. Tran, Y. Wu, Using a fuzzy clustering chaotic-based differential
evolution with serial method to solve resource-constrained project scheduling
problems, Autom. Constr. 37 (2014) 88–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2013.10.002.
[57] H. Khamesi, S.R. Torabi, H. Mirzaei-Nasirabad, Z. Ghadiri, Improving the
performance of intelligent back analysis for tunneling using optimized fuzzy
systems: Case study of the Karaj Subway Line 2 in Iran, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 29
(6) (2015) 05014010, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000421.
[58] Y. Pan, L. Zhang, Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and
management: a critical review and future trends, Autom. Constr. 122 (2021),
103517, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103517.
[59] Q. Li, K. Wang, M. Eacker, Z. Zhang, Clustering methods for truck traffic
characterization in pavement ME design, ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. 3
(2) (2017) F4016003, https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000881.
[60] M. Sarihi, V. Shahhosseini, M. Banki, Development and comparative analysis of
the fuzzy inference system-based construction labor productivity models, Int. J.
Constr. Manag. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1885117.
[61] R. Zuo, Y. Xiong, Big data analytics of identifying geochemical anomalies
supported by machine learning methods, Nat. Resour. Res. 27 (1) (2018) 5–13,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-017-9357-0.
19
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
[62] L. Yawei, C. Shouyu, N. Xiangtian, Fuzzy pattern recognition approach to
construction contractor selection, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 4 (2) (2005)
103–118, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-004-5867-4.
[63] R. Soares, L. Barroso, O. Al-Fahdawi, Response attenuation of cable-stayed bridge
subjected to central US earthquakes using neuro-fuzzy and simple adaptive
control, Eng. Struct. 203 (2020), 109874, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2019.109874.
[64] W. Utama, A. Chan, H. Zahoor, R. Gao, D. Jumas, Making decision toward
overseas construction projects, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 26 (2) (2019)
285–302, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-01-2018-0016.
[65] A. Peña, I. Bonet, C. Lochmuller, F. Chiclana, M. Góngora, An integrated inverse
adaptive neural fuzzy system with Monte-Carlo sampling method for operational
risk management, Expert Syst. Appl. 98 (2018) 11–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2018.01.001.
[66] N. Gerami Seresht, A.R. Fayek, Neuro-fuzzy system dynamics technique for
modeling construction systems, Appl. Soft Comput. 93 (2020) 106400, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106400.
[67] A. Tsehayae, A.R. Fayek, System model for analysing construction labour
productivity, Constr. Innov. 16 (2) (2016) 203–228, https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-
07-2015-0040.
[68] K. Shihabudheen, G. Pillai, Recent advances in neuro-fuzzy system: a survey,
Knowl.-Based Syst. 152 (2018) 136–162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
knosys.2018.04.014.
[69] F. Khademi, M. Akbari, S.M. Jamal, M. Nikoo, Multiple linear regression, artificial
neural network, and fuzzy logic prediction of 28 days compressive strength of
concrete, Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 11 (1) (2017) 90–99, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11709-016-0363-9.
[70] W. Wang, T. Bilozerov, R. Dzeng, F. Hsiao, K. Wang, Conceptual cost estimations
using neuro-fuzzy and multi-factor evaluation methods for building projects,
J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (1) (2017) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.3846/
13923730.2014.948908.
[71] J. Jang, ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system, IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag. 23 (3) (1993) 665–685, https://doi.org/10.1109/21.256541.
[72] M. Cheng, C. Ko, Object-oriented evolutionary fuzzy neural inference system for
construction management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129 (4) (2003) 461–469,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:4(461).
[73] N.B. Siraj, A.R. Fayek, A.A. Tsehayae, Development and optimization of artificial
intelligence-based concrete compressive strength predictive models, Int. J. Struct.
Civil Eng. Res. 5 (3) (2016) 156–167, https://doi.org/10.18178/ijscer.5.3.156-
167.
[74] I. Mansouri, O. Kisi, Prediction of debonding strength for masonry elements
retrofitted with FRP composites using neuro fuzzy and neural network
approaches, Compos. Part B 70 (2015) 247–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2014.11.023.
[75] Z. Yuan, L. Wang, X. Ji, Prediction of concrete compressive strength: Research on
hybrid models genetic based algorithms and ANFIS, Adv. Eng. Softw. 67 (2014)
156–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.09.004.
[76] M. Cheng, H. Tsai, W. Hsieh, Web-based conceptual cost estimates for
construction projects using evolutionary fuzzy neural inference model, Autom.
Constr. 18 (2) (2009) 164–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.07.001.
[77] C. Ko, M. Cheng, T. Wu, Evaluating sub-contractors performance using EFNIM,
Autom. Constr. 16 (4) (2007) 525–530, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2006.09.005.
[78] A. Rashidi, F. Jazebi, I. Brilakis, Neurofuzzy genetic system for selection of
construction project managers, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (1) (2011) 17–29,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000200.
[79] F. Mirahadi, T. Zayed, Simulation-based construction productivity forecast using
neural-network–driven fuzzy reasoning, Autom. Constr. 65 (2016) 102–115,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.12.021.
[80] M.N. Omar, A.R. Fayek, Modeling and evaluating construction project
competencies and their relationship to project performance, Autom. Constr. 69
(2016) 115–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.05.021.
[81] T.J. Ross, Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, 3rd ed., Wiley, West Sussex,
UK, 2010, pp. 117–400. ISBN: 978-0-470-74376-8.
[82] K. Aydin, O. Kisi, Applicability of a fuzzy genetic system for crack diagnosis in
Timoshenko beams, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 29 (5) (2015) 04014073, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000385.
[83] M. Marzouk, M. Alaraby, Predicting telecommunication tower costs using fuzzy
subtractive clustering, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21 (1) (2015) 67–74, https://doi.org/
10.3846/13923730.2013.802736.
[84] L. Yu, J. Zhu, L. Yu, Structural damage detection in a truss bridge model using
fuzzy clustering and measured FRF data reduced by principal component
projection, Adv. Struct. Eng. 16 (1) (2013) 207–217, https://doi.org/10.1260/
1369-4332.16.1.207.
[85] A. Amadore, G. Bosurgi, O. Pellegrino, Classification of measures from deflection
tests by means of fuzzy clustering techniques, Constr. Build. Mater. 53 (2014)
173–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.094.
[86] P. Nguyen, D. Tran, B. Lines, Empirical inference system for highway project
delivery selection using fuzzy pattern recognition, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 146
(12) (2020) 04020141, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001950.
[87] A. Tsehayae, A.R. Fayek, Developing and optimizing context-specific fuzzy
inference system-based construction labor productivity models, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 142 (7) (2016) 04016017, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001127.
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
[88] H. Naderpour, M. Mirrashid, Shear failure capacity prediction of concrete beam-
column joints in terms of ANFIS and GMDH, Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 24
(2) (2019) 04019006, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000417.
[89] M.M. Khotbehsara, B.M. Miyandehi, F. Naseri, T. Ozbakkaloglu, F. Jafari,
E. Mohseni, Effect of SnO2, ZrO2, and CaCO3 nanoparticles on water transport and
durability properties of self-compacting mortar containing fly ash: experimental
observations and ANFIS predictions, Constr. Build. Mater. 158 (2018) 823–834,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.067.
[90] F. Khademi, S.M. Jamal, Estimating the compressive strength of concrete using
multiple linear regression and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system, Int. J.
Struct. Eng. 8 (1) (2017) 20–31, https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJSTRUCTE.2017.081669.
[91] G. Kabir, R. Sadiq, S. Tesfamariam, A fuzzy Bayesian belief network for safety
assessment of oil and gas pipelines, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 12 (8) (2016)
874–889, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1053093.
[92] Q. Zhou, F. Wang, F. Zhu, Estimation of compressive strength of hollow concrete
masonry prisms using artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference systems, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 417–426, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.064.
[93] E. Sadrossadat, A. Heidaripanah, S. Osouli, Prediction of the resilient modulus of
flexible pavement subgrade soils using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems,
Constr. Build. Mater. 123 (2016) 235–247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.07.008.
[94] T.M. Al-zharani, R. Demirboga, W.H. Khushefati, O. Taylan, Measurement and
prediction of correction factors for very high core compressive strength by using
the adaptive neuro-fuzzy techniques, Constr. Build. Mater. 122 (2016) 320–331,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.019.
[95] M. Mohamad, D. Tran, Risk-based prioritization approach to construction
inspections for transportation projects, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 147 (1) (2021)
04020150, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001962.
[96] F. Abad, L. Naeni, A hybrid framework to assess the risk of change in construction
projects using fuzzy fault tree and fuzzy event tree analysis, Int. J. Constr. Manag.
(2020) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1790474.
[97] P. Rezakhani, Hybrid fuzzy-Bayesian decision support tool for dynamic project
scheduling and control under uncertainty, Int. J. Constr. Manag. (2020) 1–13,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1828539.
[98] S. Shoar, A. Banaitis, Application of fuzzy fault tree analysis to identify factors
influencing construction labor productivity: a high-rise building case study,
J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 25 (1) (2019) 41–52, https://doi.org/10.3846/
jcem.2019.7785.
[99] S. Shoar, F. Nasirzadeh, H. Zarandi, Quantitative assessment of risks on
construction projects using fault tree analysis with hybrid uncertainties, Constr.
Innov. 19 (1) (2019) 48–70, https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-07-2018-0057.
[100] S. Phoemphon, C. So-In, D. Niyato, A hybrid model using fuzzy logic and an
extreme learning machine with vector particle swarm optimization for wireless
sensor network localization, Appl. Soft Comput. 65 (2018) 101–120, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.01.004.
[101] J.S. Chou, A.D. Pham, H. Wang, Bidding strategy to support decision-making by
integrating fuzzy AHP and regression-based simulation, Autom. Constr. 35 (2013)
517–527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.06.007.
[102] E. Plebankiewicz, D. Kubek, Multicriteria selection of the building material
supplier using AHP and fuzzy AHP, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (1) (2016)
04015057, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001033.
[103] W. Jang, H.U. Hong, S.H. Han, S.W. Baek, Optimal supply vendor selection model
for LNG plant projects using fuzzy-TOPSIS theory, J. Manag. Eng. 33 (2) (2017)
04016035, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000474.
[104] O. Taylan, A.O. Bafail, R.M. Abdulaal, M.R. Kabli, Construction projects selection
and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies, Appl. Soft
Comput. 17 (2014) 105–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003.
[105] S. Ebrahimnejad, S.M. Mousavi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, M. Heydar, Risk
ranking in mega projects by fuzzy compromise approach: a comparative analysis,
J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 26 (2) (2014) 949–959, https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-
130785.
[106] S.M. Mousavi, F. Jolai, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, A fuzzy stochastic multi-
attribute group decision-making approach for selection problems, Group Decis.
Negot. (2013) 1–27, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9259-1.
[107] J.R. San Cristobal, Critical path definition using multicriteria decision making:
PROMETHEE method, J. Manag. Eng. 29 (2) (2013) 158–163, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000135.
[108] Y. Wu, J. Zhang, J. Yuan, S. Geng, H. Zhang, Study of decision framework of
offshore wind power station site selection based on ELECTRE-III under
intuitionistic fuzzy environment: a case of China, Energy Convers. Manag. 113
(2016) 66–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.01.020.
[109] F. Afzal, S. Yunfei, M. Nazir, S. Bhatti, A review of artificial intelligence based risk
assessment methods for capturing complexity-risk interdependencies: Cost
overrun in construction projects, Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 14 (2) (2021) 300–328,
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-02-2019-0047.
[110] R. Mavi, C. Standing, Critical success factors of sustainable project management
in construction: a fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP approach, J. Clean. Prod. 194 (2018)
751–765, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.120.
[111] H. Aladağ, Z. Işık, Design and construction risks in BOT type mega transportation
projects, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 26 (10) (2019) 2223–2242, https://doi.org/
10.1108/ecam-08-2018-0351.
[112] N. Monzer, A.R. Fayek, R. Lourenzutti, N. Siraj, Aggregation-based framework for
construction risk assessment with heterogeneous groups of experts, J. Constr. Eng.
20
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
Manag. 145 (3) (2019) 04019003, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-
7862.0001614.
[113] W. Jang, S.K. Lee, S.H. Han, Sustainable performance index for assessing the
green technologies in urban infrastructure projects, J. Manag. Eng. 34 (2) (2018)
04017056, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000582.
[114] X. Zhao, L. Chen, W. Pan, Q. Lu, AHP-ANP–fuzzy integral integrated network for
evaluating performance of innovative business models for sustainable building,
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143 (8) (2017) 04017054, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001348.
[115] S. Inti, V. Tandon, Application of fuzzy preference-analytic hierarchy process
logic in evaluating sustainability of transportation infrastructure requiring
multicriteria decision making, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 23 (4) (2017) 04017014,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000373.
[116] M. Tomczak, P. Jaśkowski, Application of type-2 interval fuzzy sets to contractor
qualification process, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. (2018) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12205-017-0431-2.
[117] S. Mohandes, H. Sadeghi, A. Mahdiyar, S. Durdyev, A. Banaitis, K. Yahya,
S. Ismail, Assessing construction labours’ safety level: A fuzzy MCDM approach,
J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 26 (2) (2020) 175–188, https://doi.org/10.3846/
jcem.2020.11926.
[118] A.R. Fayek, M.N. Omar, A fuzzy TOPSIS method for prioritized aggregation in
multi-criteria decision making problems, J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 23 (5-6)
(2016) 242–256, https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1573.
[119] A. Pasha, A. Mansourian, M. Ravanshadnia, A hybrid fuzzy multi-attribute
decision making model to select road pavement type, Soft. Comput. 24 (21)
(2020) 16135–16148, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04928-2.
[120] A. Reddy, P. Kumar, P. Raj, Entropy-based fuzzy TOPSIS framework for selection
of a sustainable building material, Int. J. Constr. Manag. (2019) 1–12, https://doi.
org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1683695.
[121] A. Fazeli, F. Jalaei, M. Khanzadi, S. Banihashemi, BIM-integrated TOPSIS-Fuzzy
framework to optimize selection of sustainable building components, Int. J.
Constr. Manag. (2019) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1686836.
[122] K. Mathiyazhagan, A. Gnanavelbabu, B. Lokesh Prabhuraj, A sustainable
assessment model for material selection in construction industries perspective
using hybrid MCDM approaches, J. Adv. Manag. Res. 16 (2) (2019) 234–259,
https://doi.org/10.1108/jamr-09-2018-0085.
[123] A. Norouzi, H. Ghayur Namin, A hybrid fuzzy TOPSIS–best worst method for risk
prioritization in megaprojects, Civil Eng. J. 5 (6) (2019) 1257–1272, https://doi.
org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091330.
[124] M. Yazdi, Risk assessment based on novel intuitionistic fuzzy-hybrid-modified
TOPSIS approach, Saf. Sci. 110 (2018) 438–448, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2018.03.005.
[125] M. Arashpour, R. Wakefield, B. Abbasi, M. Arashpour, R. Hosseini, Optimal
process integration architectures in off-site construction: theorizing the use of
multi-skilled resources, Architect. Eng. Design Manag. 14 (1–2) (2018) 46–59,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2017.1302406.
[126] G. Polat, E. Eray, B.N. Bingol, An integrated fuzzy MCGDM approach for supplier
selection problem, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (7) (2017) 926–942, https://doi.org/
10.3846/13923730.2017.1343201.
[127] L. Wang, H.-Y. Zhang, J.-Q. Wang, L. Li, Picture fuzzy normalized projection-
based VIKOR method for the risk evaluation of construction project, Appl. Soft
Comput. 64 (2018) 216–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.12.014.
[128] S. Mirhosseini, R. Kiani Mavi, N. Kiani Mavi, B. Abbasnejad, F. Rayani,
Interrelations among leadership competencies of BIM leaders: A fuzzy DEMATEL-
ANP approach, Sustainability 12 (18) (2020) 7830, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12187830.
[129] T. Omar, M.L. Nehdi, T. Zayed, Performance of NDT techniques in appraising
condition of reinforced concrete bridge decks, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 31 (6)
(2017) 04017104, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001098.
[130] N. Prascevic, Z. Prascevic, Application of fuzzy AHP for ranking and selection of
alternatives in construction project management, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (8)
(2017) 1123–1135, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1388278.
[131] H. Abdul-Rahman, C. Wang, L.C. Wood, M. Ebrahimi, Integrating and ranking
sustainability criteria for housing, Eng. Sustain. 169 (1) (2016) 3–30, https://doi.
org/10.1680/ensu.15.00008.
[132] M.S. El-Abbasy, H. El Chanati, F. Mosleh, A. Senouci, T. Zayed, H. Al-Derham,
Integrated performance assessment model for water distribution networks, Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng. 12 (11) (2016) 1505–1524, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2016.1144620.
[133] R. Liang, Z. Dong, Z. Sheng, X. Wang, C. Wu, Case study of selecting decision-
making schemes in large-scale infrastructure projects, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 23 (4)
(2017) 06017001, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000364.
[134] A.I. Maghsoodi, M. Khalilzadeh, Identification and evaluation of construction
projects’ critical success factors employing fuzzy-TOPSIS approach, KSCE J. Civ.
Eng. (2017) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1970-2.
[135] H.M. Al-Humaidi, Construction projects bid or not bid approach using the fuzzy
technique for order preference by similarity (FTOPSIS) method, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 142 (12) (2016) 04016068, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001180.
[136] A.J. Chaghooshi, E. Khanmohammadi, M. Faghei, A. Karimi, Contractor selection
using integrated goal programming and fuzzy ELECTRE, Int. J. Strategic Decision
Sci. 5 (3) (2014) 65–86, https://doi.org/10.4018/ijsds.2014070104.
[137] A. Yazdani-Chamzini, S.H. Yakhchali, M. Mahmoodian, Risk ranking of tunnel
construction projects by using the ELECTRE technique under a fuzzy
environment, Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng Manag 8 (1) (2013) 1–14, https://doi.org/
10.1080/17509653.2013.783185.
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
[138] M. Eghbali-Zarch, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, K. Dehghan-Sanej, A. Kaboli,
Prioritizing the effective strategies for construction and demolition waste
management using fuzzy IDOCRIW and WASPAS methods, Engineering,
Construct. Architect. Manag. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-08-2020-
0617.
[139] A. Karamoozian, D. Wu, A hybrid risk prioritization approach in construction
projects using failure mode and effective analysis, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 27
(9) (2020) 2661–2686, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-10-2019-0535.
[140] B. Gharanfoli, C. Valmohammadi, Identification and prioritization of construction
projects investment risks using a hybrid fuzzy approach, J. Multi-Criteria Decis.
Anal. 26 (3-4) (2019) 113–127, https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1661.
[141] S. Hatefi, J. Tamošaitienė, An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-fuzzy ANP model for
evaluating construction projects by considering interrelationships among risk
factors, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 25 (2) (2019) 114–131, https://doi.org/10.3846/
jcem.2019.8280.
[142] M. Yazdani, M. Abdi, N. Kumar, M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, F. Chan, Improved
decision model for evaluating risks in construction projects, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 145 (5) (2019) 04019024, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-
7862.0001640.
[143] R. Liang, H. Chong, A hybrid group decision model for green supplier selection: a
case study of megaprojects, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 26 (8) (2019)
1712–1734, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-10-2018-0462.
[144] F. Sedady, M. Beheshtinia, A novel MCDM model for prioritizing the renewable
power plants’ construction, Manag. Environ. Qual. 30 (2) (2019) 383–399,
https://doi.org/10.1108/meq-05-2018-0102.
[145] S. Mohandes, X. Zhang, Towards the development of a comprehensive hybrid
fuzzy-based occupational risk assessment model for construction workers, Saf.
Sci. 115 (2019) 294–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.018.
[146] M. Gunduz, M. Talat Birgonul, M. Ozdemir, Development of a safety performance
index assessment tool by using a fuzzy structural equation model for construction
sites, Autom. Constr. 85 (2018) 124–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2017.10.012.
[147] A. Ardeshir, M. Mohajeri, Assessment of safety culture among job positions in
high-rise construction: a hybrid fuzzy multi criteria decision-making (FMCDM)
approach, Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 25 (2) (2018) 195–206, https://doi.org/
10.1080/17457300.2017.1416483.
[148] A. Boostani, F. Jolai, A. Bozorgi-Amiri, Optimal location selection of temporary
accommodation sites in Iran via a hybrid fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making
approach, J. Urban Plann. Dev. 144 (4) (2018) 04018039, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000479.
[149] M.K. Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, J.S. Sadaghiani, E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene,
A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of construction equipment
with sustainability considerations, Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 18 (2018) 32–49,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011.
[150] E.E. Ameyaw, A.P.C. Chan, A fuzzy approach for the allocation of risks in public-
private partnership water-infrastructure projects in developing countries,
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 22 (3) (2016) 04016016, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
IS.1943-555X.0000297.
[151] N. Singhaputtangkul, Z. Zhao, Applying a fuzzy consensus scheme to enhance the
group decision making of a building envelope design team, J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
142 (8) (2016) 04016025, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001142.
[152] M. Raoufi, N.G. Seresht, A.R. Fayek, Overview of fuzzy simulation techniques in
construction engineering and management, in: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual
Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society
(NAFIPS), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.2016.7851610.
[153] N. Sadeghi, A.R. Fayek, W. Pedrycz, Fuzzy Monte Carlo simulation and risk
assessment in construction, Comput. Aid. Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 25 (4) (2010)
238–252, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2009.00632.x.
[154] R. Gouri, V. Srinivas, A fuzzy approach to reliability based design of storm water
drain network, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A. 31 (5) (2017) 1091–1106, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00477-016-1299-2.
[155] L. Parvizsedghy, A. Senouci, T. Zayed, S.F. Mirahadi, M.S. El-Abbasy, Condition-
based maintenance decision support system for oil and gas pipelines, Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng. 11 (10) (2015) 1323–1337, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2014.964266.
[156] A.A. Shaheen, A.R. Fayek, S.M. AbouRizk, Methodology for integrating fuzzy
expert systems and discrete event simulation in construction engineering, Can. J.
Civ. Eng. 36 (9) (2009) 1478–1490, https://doi.org/10.1139/L09-091.
[157] N. Sadeghi, A.R. Fayek, N. Gerami Seresht, Queue performance measures in
construction simulation models containing subjective uncertainty, Autom. Constr.
60 (2015) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.023.
[158] R.R. Levary, Systems dynamics with fuzzy logic, Int. J. Syst. Sci. 21 (8) (1990)
1701–1707, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207729008910486.
[159] F. Nasirzadeh, M. Khanzadi, M. Rezaie, Dynamic modeling of the quantitative risk
allocation in construction projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (3) (2014) 442–451,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.002.
[160] N. Gerami Seresht, A.R. Fayek, Dynamic modeling of multifactor construction
productivity for equipment-intensive activities, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 144 (9)
(2018), 04018091, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001549.
[161] P. Nojedehi, F. Nasirzadeh, A hybrid simulation approach to model and improve
construction labor productivity, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (5) (2017) 1516–1524,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0278-y.
[162] F. Nasirzadeh, M. Khanzadi, A. Afshar, S. Howick, Modeling quality management
in construction projects, Int. J. Civil Eng. 11 (1) (2013) 14–22, http://ijce.iust.ac.
ir/article-1-646-en.html.
21
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
[163] F. Nasirzadeh, D. Carmichael, M. Jarban, M. Rostamnezhad, Hybrid fuzzy-system
dynamics approach for quantification of the impacts of construction claims, Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manag. 26 (7) (2019) 1261–1276, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-
08-2017-0150.
[164] N. Siraj, A.R. Fayek, Hybrid fuzzy system dynamics model for analyzing the
impacts of interrelated risk and opportunity events on project contingency, Can.
J. Civ. Eng. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2020-0032.
[165] N. Kedir, M. Raoufi, A.R. Fayek, Fuzzy agent-based multicriteria decision-making
model for analyzing construction crew performance, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 36 (5)
(2020) 04020053, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000815.
[166] L. Luo, L. Zhang, Q. He, Linking project complexity to project success: a hybrid
SEM–FCM method, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 27 (9) (2020) 2591–2614,
https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2019-0241.
[167] K. Naji, M. Mansour, M. Gunduz, Methods for modeling and evaluating
construction disputes: A critical review, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 45641–45652,
https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2976109.
[168] E. Haqiqat, Y. Zare Mehrjerdi, A. Zare Bidaki, Fuzzy inference system-Latin
hypercube simulation: an integrated hybrid model for OHS risks management,
Int. J. Project Manag. 4 (2019) 127–140, https://doi.org/10.5267/j.
jpm.2018.11.001.
[169] M. Khanzadi, F. Nasirzadeh, M. Dashti, Fuzzy cognitive map approach to analyze
causes of change orders in construction projects, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 144 (2)
(2018) 04017111, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001430.
[170] R. Ahmed, T. Zayed, F. Nasiri, A hybrid genetic algorithm-based fuzzy Markovian
model for the deterioration modeling of healthcare facilities, Algorithms 13 (9)
(2020) 210, https://doi.org/10.3390/a13090210.
[171] Y. Tu, X. Zhou, J. Gang, J. Xu, W. Shen, B. Lev, Hierarchical supplier selection
optimization with multiple items in large-scale construction projects,
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 23 (3) (2017) 04017003, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
IS.1943-555X.0000356.
[172] I. Bakry, O. Moselhi, T. Zayed, Optimized scheduling and buffering of repetitive
construction projects under uncertainty, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 23 (6)
(2016) 782–800, https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2014-0069.
[173] A. Haghighi, A.H. Ayati, Stability analysis of gravity dams under uncertainty
using the fuzzy sets theory and a many-objective GA, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 30 (3)
(2016) 1857–1868, https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-151897.
[174] Q. Liu, J. Xu, F. Qin, Optimization for the integrated operations in an uncertain
construction supply chain, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 64 (3) (2017) 400–414,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2017.2686489.
[175] M.-Y. Cheng, D. Prayogo, A novel fuzzy adaptive teaching-learning-based
optimization (FATLBO) for solving structural optimization problems, Eng.
Comput. 33 (2017) 55–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-016-0456-z.
[176] M.-Y. Cheng, D.-H. Tran, An efficient hybrid differential evolution based serial
method for multimode resource-constrained project scheduling, KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
20 (1) (2016) 90–100, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0414-0.
[177] S. Kikuchi, N. Kronprasert, S.M. Easa, Aggregate blending using fuzzy
optimization, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (12) (2012) 1411–1420, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000557.
[178] J. Xu, P. Wei, Production-distribution planning of construction supply chain
management under fuzzy random environment for large-scale construction
projects, J. Industrial Manag. Optimiz. 9 (1) (2013) 31–56, https://doi.org/
10.3934/jimo.2013.9.31.
[179] W. ShangGuan, J. Wang, Z. Sheng, X. Yu, B. Cai, J. Wang, Adaptive fuzzy
planning of optimal speed profiles for high-speed train operation on the basis of a
Pareto set, Transp. Res. Rec. 2546 (1) (2016) 103–111, https://doi.org/10.3141/
2546-13.
[180] A. Afshar, H. Amiri, Risk-based approach to unbalanced bidding in construction
projects, Eng. Optim. 42 (4) (2010) 369–385, https://doi.org/10.1080/
03052150903220964.
[181] Y. Ma, J. Xu, A novel multiple decision-maker model for resource-constrained
project scheduling problems, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 41 (6) (2014) 500–511, https://
doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0232.
[182] 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.
[183] K. Sambhoo, S. Kadam, A. Deshpande, Ranking of sites for power plant
installation using soft computing techniques: a thought beyond EIA, Appl. Soft
Comput. 23 (2014) 556–566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.05.016.
[184] K.C. Lam, X. Ning, T. Ng, The application of the ant colony optimization
algorithm to the construction site layout planning problem, Constr. Manag. Econ.
25 (4) (2007) 359–374, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600972870.
[185] M. Marzouk, E. Abdelakder, A hybrid fuzzy-optimization method for modeling
construction emissions, Decision Sci. Lett (2020) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.5267/
j.dsl.2019.9.002.
[186] E. Kalhor, M. Khanzadi, E. Eshtehardian, A. Afshar, Stochastic time–cost
optimization using non-dominated archiving ant colony approach, Autom. Constr.
20 (8) (2011) 1193–1203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.05.003.
[187] Y. Zhang, Z. Guan, Selecting project risk preventive and protective strategies
based on bow-tie analysis, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 34 (3) (2018) 04018009,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000603.
[188] H. Ke, W. Ma, X. Gao, W. Xu, New fuzzy models for time-cost trade-off problem,
Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 9 (2) (2010) 219–231, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10700-010-9076-z.
[189] V. Novák, I. Perfilieva, A. Dvoøák, Insight into Fuzzy Modeling, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016, pp. 151–188. ISBN: 978-1-119-19318-0.
P.H.D. Nguyen and A. Robinson Fayek
[190] E. Çano, M. Morisio, Hybrid recommender systems: a systematic literature review,
Intelligent Data Analysis 21 (6) (2017) 1487–1524, https://doi.org/10.3233/
IDA-163209.
[191] P.V. de Campos Souza, Fuzzy neural networks and neuro-fuzzy networks: a
review the main techniques and applications used in the literature, Appl. Soft
Comput. 92 (2020) 106275, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106275.
[192] M. Mohd Adnan, A. Sarkheyli, A. Mohd Zain, H. Haron, Fuzzy logic for modeling
machining process: a review, Artif. Intell. Rev. 43 (3) (2013) 345–379, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10462-012-9381-8.
[193] C. Kahraman, S. Onar, B. Oztaysi, Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: A
literature review, Int. J. Comput. Intel. Syst. 8 (4) (2015) 637–666, https://doi.
org/10.1080/18756891.2015.1046325.
[194] A.R. Fayek, Fuzzy logic and fuzzy hybrid techniques for construction engineering
and management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 146 (7) (2020) 04020064, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001854.
22
Automation in Construction 134 (2022) 104064
[195] H. Moon, H. Kim, V. Kamat, L. Kang, BIM-based construction scheduling method
using optimization theory for reducing activity overlaps, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 29
(3) (2015) 04014048, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000342.
[196] S. Razavi, C. Haas, Multisensor data fusion for on-site materials tracking in
construction, Autom. Constr. 19 (8) (2010) 1037–1046, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2010.07.017.
[197] S. Razavi, C. Haas, Reliability-based hybrid data fusion method for adaptive
location estimation in construction, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 26 (1) (2012) 1–10,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000101.
[198] H. Li, W. Wang, L. Fan, Q. Li, X. Chen, A novel hybrid MCDM model for machine
tool selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, entropy weighting and later defuzzification
VIKOR, Appl. Soft Comput. 91 (2020), 106207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2020.106207.
[199] X. Song, J. Xu, C. Shen, F. Peña-Mora, F., Conflict resolution-motivated strategy
towards integrated construction site layout and material logistics planning: A bi-
stakeholder perspective, Autom. Constr. 87 (2018) 138–157, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.018.