buildings
Article
Formwork System Selection in Building Construction Projects
Using an Integrated Rough AHP-EDAS Approach: A Case Study
Taylan Terzioglu and Gul Polat *
Citation: Terzioglu, T.; Polat, G.
Formwork System Selection in
Building Construction Projects Using
an Integrated Rough AHP-EDAS
Approach: A Case Study. Buildings
2022, 12, 1084. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings12081084
Academic Editor: Farook Hamzeh
Received: 20 June 2022
Accepted: 22 July 2022
Published: 25 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081084
Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Turkey; terzioglu17@itu.edu.tr
* Correspondence: polatgu@itu.edu.tr; Tel.: +90-212-285-3737
Abstract: The successful completion of reinforced concrete (RC) building construction projects
depends, in part, on selecting the appropriate formwork system (FWS) since it may significantly
affect the project’s cost, time, and quality performance factors. The selection of the FWS depends on a
number of compromising and conflicting criteria, while several FWS alternatives may be available.
Therefore, the FWS selection has mostly been treated as a multi-criteria-decision-making (MCDM)
problem. Although various MCDM methods have been employed to address the FWS selection
problem, none have considered the subjectivity and uncertainty arising from a group decision-
making process. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap by proposing an integrated approach
using recently developed MCDM methods with rough numbers. In the integrated approach, first, a
decision-making team is formed to develop the decision hierarchy. Then, the rough analytic hierarchy
process (R-AHP) is used to determine rough criteria weights, followed by the rough evaluation based
on the distance from average solution (R-EDAS) method to rank the FWS alternatives. Finally, the
results are compared using different rough MCDM methods to ensure the stability of the proposed
approach. The proposed approach is applied to a real-life building construction project in Turkey
to select the most appropriate FWS. The integrated approach was found to be effective, and it was
recommended to be used for future FWS selection problems. The proposed integrated approach in
this study may be used as a decision support tool for construction professionals and experts to select
the FWS in building construction projects.
Keywords: building construction project; formwork system selection; decision making; rough
numbers; rough AHP; rough EDAS; case study
1. Introduction
The formwork system (FWS) gives the geometry and strength required by the rein-
forced concrete (RC) structure to attain the desired form and structural design properties of
the cured concrete [1,2]. In addition, formwork-related activities such as erecting the FWS,
placing the rebar, pouring the concrete, and stripping the FWS are performed continuously
throughout the building construction project [3,4]. Therefore, the FWS can have significant
effects on the construction project’s time, cost, and quality performance [5–8]. In general,
the FWS may account for up to two-thirds of the entire cost of the RC structural frame [9],
and it can significantly affect the total duration of the project since it influences the floor
cycle-time of building construction projects [10]. The planning and designing of the FWS
can be a major challenge for construction professionals as they are both time-consuming
and complex processes [11]. Moreover, the incorrect planning of the FWS may be a signifi-
cant source of material and time waste in the later phases of the construction project [12].
Therefore, the selected FWS may also affect the sustainability performance of the RC build-
ing construction project [13]. In this regard, due to the high level of material waste in RC
construction [14,15], the sustainability of the FWS has become an important factor in recent
years [16].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 2 of 31

The structural design and the selected FWS may affect an RC building construction
project’s constructability [17]. Revaluating the building’s structural design in light of
the available FWS alternatives may improve constructability and potentially lower the
unit cost of the RC structure [18]. In other words, improving the constructability in
RC building construction projects may depend on selecting the appropriate FWS [19].
Furthermore, formwork activities (e.g., erecting, stripping, or moving of the FWS) are
considered especially dangerous for construction workers due to their association with
a high level of construction accidents [20,21]. Hence, the FWS may also affect the safety
performance of the RC building construction project. In building construction projects,
labour productivity can be measured as a function of the floor cycle time of the FWS [22].
Since different FWS may have varying floor cycle times, labour productivity is another
project performance factor affected by the selected FWS [23]. Consequently, selecting the
appropriate FWS can save project costs and time, and it can be a critical component in
successfully implementing an RC building construction project [8,24,25].
Since the early 1990s, several studies have been conducted to identify the FWS selection
criteria and the FWS alternatives to solve the FWS selection problem [26]. The selection
of the appropriate FWS depends on various compromising and conflicting criteria, some
of which can be interdependent and interrelated [27]. Moreover, the widespread use
of industrial FWSs (i.e., modular and reusable FWSs) and technical advancements in
formwork engineering have led to the inclusion of new FWS selection criteria and new
FWS alternatives for building construction projects [22,27,28]. Therefore, scholars and
construction professionals have treated the FWS selection as a multi-criteria decision-
making (MCDM) problem based on several FWS selection criteria and FWS alternatives,
e.g., [29,30].
The FWS selection is a group decision-making process conducted by experts in the
field of formwork engineering [1]. Therefore, consideration of the subjective judgments
and the uncertainty in the collected data from these experts in the MCDM model may
provide an improved and objective selection process [31]. Although previous studies
greatly contribute to the FWS selection problem, they do not consider the subjectivity and
uncertainty in the collected data from the decision-making team. The main objective of this
study is not to develop a new MCDM methodology but to propose an integrated approach
that employs the recently developed rough analytic hierarchy process (R-AHP) and rough
evaluation based on distance from average solution (R-EDAS) methods to solve the FWS
selection problem. Several studies have combined the AHP and EDAS methods to solve
a specific selection problem, e.g., [32]. For instance, Stevic et al. [33] used an integrated
fuzzy AHP-EDAS approach to evaluate suppliers in an uncertain environment. Similarly,
Karatop et al. [34] utilized the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy EDAS methods to determine the best
renewable energy alternative in Turkey. In addition, Toan et al. [35] combined the AHP
and EDAS methods to evaluate video conferencing software alternatives and used grey
numbers to integrate the subjective judgments of the experts in their case study. In this
study’s proposed approach, the subjective opinions of the experts are aggregated, and the
uncertainty in the data is incorporated using the rough set theory and rough numbers. The
R-AHP method is used to determine the rough weights of the FWS selection criteria, and
the R-EDAS method is employed to evaluate and rank the FWS alternatives. In addition,
a comparative analysis using other rough MCDM methods is proposed to ensure the
stability and validity of the final rankings of the FWS alternatives. In order to illustrate the
effectiveness of the proposed approach for the FWS selection problem, it was applied to a
real-life building construction project in Turkey.
This study is intended to serve as a decision support tool for construction profes-
sionals and experts participating in the FWS decision-making process and is regarded
as a considerable contribution to the body of knowledge regarding the FWS selection
problem. As the selected FWS may impact the time, cost, quality, safety, sustainability,
labour productivity, and the constructability of a building construction project [17,23,36],
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 3 of 31

the integrated approach proposed in this study may be utilized to improve these project
performance factors.

2. Literature Review
The selection of FWSs in building construction projects has been the focus of several
studies from 1989 until 2022. The majority of these studies fall into two main categories:
(1) studies that focus on identifying and/or ranking the quantitative and qualitative FWS
selection criteria, e.g., [24,37], and (2) studies that propose solutions to select the most
appropriate FWS, which is affected by various compromising and conflicting criteria,
e.g., [10,38]. The studies related to the identification and/or ranking of FWS selection
criteria have been summarized in a single body of knowledge in Terzioglu et al.’s [27]
study, which is a critical review of the relevant literature for building construction projects.
Since the main objective of this study is to propose an integrated MCDM approach for
selecting FWSs, this section will focus mainly on studies that attempted to solve the FWS
selection problem. Value engineering, knowledge-based guidelines, rule-based expert
systems, neural networks (NNs), and several MCDM methods are among the proposed
solutions for the FWS selection problem. The following is a brief review of these studies in
chronological order:
Hanna and Sanvido [39] developed a knowledge-based systematic guideline, specif-
ically for the contractor’s formwork planner, to select vertical FWSs based on Hanna’s
factors and FWS alternatives [37]. In this study, five vertical FWS alternatives, including
conventional FWS, ganged FWS, jump FWS, slip FWS, and self-raising FWS, were identified
for building construction projects in the USA. Hanna et al. [26] presented a rule-based
expert system to assist decision-makers and formwork design engineers in selecting vertical
and horizontal FWS alternatives for building construction projects in the USA. This study
considered traditional wood FWS, conventional metal FWS, flying truss FWS (i.e., Table
FWS), column-mounted shoring FWS, and tunnel FWS as horizontal FWS alternatives.
Kamarthi et al. [40] and Hanna and Senouci [41] proposed Neural Network (NN) models
for the vertical and horizontal FWSs selection problem, respectively, using the previously
identified factors and FWS alternatives. Abdel-Razek [42] utilized a value engineering
approach to guide decision-makers in the FWS selection process for building construction
projects. Elazouni et al. [43] proposed an integrated approach to estimate the acceptabil-
ity of new horizontal FWSs (e.g., telescopic beam and prop FWS, telescopic beam and
shore-brace FWS, shore-brace FWS, s-beam and prop FWS, drop-head FWS), by combining
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method with NN models. Based on previously
developed NN models for the FWS selection problem, e.g., [41], Tam et al. [44] and Shin [45]
introduced a probabilistic NN model and an artificial NN model, respectively, to select the
most appropriate FWS. In Shin’s [32] study, horizontal FWS alternatives such as aluminium
panel FWS, conventional FWS, Table FWS, and drop-head FWS were identified as the most
commonly utilized FWSs in Korea’s high-rise building construction projects. Elbeltagi
et al.’s [46] study for the selection of horizontal FWS (e.g., conventional FWS, Table FWS,
shore-brace FWS, and drop-head FWS), and Elbeltagi et al.’s [29] study for the selection of
vertical FWS (e.g., traditional FWS, panel FWS, single-sided FWS, crane-climbing FWS, and
self-climbing FWS) both used a knowledge-based systematic guideline and fuzzy logic to
determine the most appropriate FWS in building construction projects in Egypt. It should
be noted that, in these studies, fuzzy logic was applied to convert linguistic input and
output variables associated with FWS selection criteria and FWS alternatives, respectively,
to their fuzzy forms. Shin et al. [10] employed a boosted decision tree (BDT) model to select
horizontal FWSs in high-rise building construction projects in Korea, based on the most
important FWS alternatives and factors affecting the FWS selection identified by Shin [45].
Several studies have proposed well-known MCDM methods to solve the FWS selection
problem using experts’ evaluations based on crisp numbers. For instance, Krawczyska-
Piechna [47] proposed the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) method to select the most appropriate FWS for building construction projects
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 4 of 31

in Poland. Martinez et al. [48] proposed the Choosing by Advantages (CBA) method for
the FWS selection problem in Ecuador. However, in these studies, information regarding
the various types of FWS alternatives was not provided. Basu and Jha [38] applied the
AHP method to solve the FWS selection problem in the Indian building construction sector,
based on the FWS selection criteria identified by Hanna et al. [26]. Likewise, Hansen
et al. [30] employed the AHP method to select among two FWS alternatives (e.g., con-
ventional FWS and aluminium FWS) based on Indonesia’s most significant FWS selection
criteria. Teja et al. [49] developed a fuzzy rule-based system to select vertical FWSs by
combining fuzzy logic with the rule-based expert system introduced by Hanna et al. [26].
This study determined that traditional FWS, conventional FWS, panel FWS, crane-climbing
FWS, self-climbing FWS, and plastic FWS are the most frequently utilized FWSs in the
Indian building construction sector.
In summary, most studies addressing the FWS selection problem employed techniques
such as rule-based expert systems, NNs, and other MCDM methods. However, no study has
integrated the subjective judgments of the decision-makers into the FWS selection process or
considered the vagueness in the collected data from the experts in their evaluation to select
the most appropriate FWS. The FWS selection is a group decision-making process [29]. In
addition, the early involvement of different stakeholder groups (e.g., the contractor and the
formwork fabricator (FWF)) in the planning and design stages of the FWS may improve the
time and the cost performance of a building construction project [50,51]. On the other hand,
the perspectives and perceptions regarding the FWS alternatives and the importance level
of FWS selection criteria of different construction professionals (i.e., experts in the decision-
making team) may vary [52]. However, uncertainty arises when decision-makers have
varying opinions on alternatives [53]. This might result from inadequate information or
the different backgrounds of the decision-makers [53]. Therefore, the subjective judgments
and the vagueness in data obtained from the experts should be considered when using
MCDM methods for the FWS selection problem. In this regard, using the mathematical
tools provided by uncertainty theories such as fuzzy set theory and rough set theory may
improve the objectivity of the decision-making process [54,55]; in this case, for evaluating
FWS alternatives. To the authors’ knowledge, no study involving MCDM methods to
solve the FWS selection problem has incorporated uncertainty into the decision-making
process. The main objective of this study is to fill the critical knowledge gap by using
rough numbers to evaluate the FWS selection criteria and alternatives. For this purpose, an
integrated MCDM approach is proposed, which will be discussed in the following section
of this study.

3. Research Methodology
The main objective of this study is to propose an integrated MCDM approach to solve
the FWS selection problem using rough numbers, which is intended to incorporate the
vagueness and the subjectivity of expert evaluation in the decision-making process. The
proposed approach may serve as a valuable tool for construction professionals involved in
the FWS’s decision-making process. In addition, the proposed research methodology is
in accordance with prior construction management studies, in which integrated MCDM
methods are employed to solve a specific selection problem, e.g., [56–60]. As demonstrated
in Figure 1, the main stages of the proposed research methodology are as follows:

3.1. Formation of the Decision-Making Team

The selection of the FWS may be performed by different stakeholder groups, such
as the engineer, the contractor, and/or the FWF, depending on the project delivery sys-
tem, construction method, type of structure, and capacity of the stakeholder [4,52]. In
addition, there may be significant statistical differences or disagreements in the relative
importance level of FWS selection criteria among different groups of construction profes-
sionals (e.g., company owners, project managers, construction managers, site engineers,
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 5 of 31

Buildings 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW

planning engineers, procurement engineers, technical office engineers, formwork design,
and/or formwork sales engineers) [8,52].

Figure
Figure 1. Research methodology
1. Research flowchart of
methodology the proposed
flowchart ofapproach.
the proposed approach.
Therefore, the type of the selected FWS (i.e., the FWS alternative) may depend on the
3.1. Formation
perspective of the Decision-Making
and perception Team
of the different groups of construction professionals. However,
the early involvement of all stakeholders during the planning and design stage of the FWS
The selection
may significantly improve ofthe
the FWS may
performance be performed
factors by different
of a building construction stakeholder
project, such g
the
as theengineer, the
time, the cost, contractor,
and and/or
the quality, while the FWF,
reducing materialdepending
and time wasteoninthe project de
the FWS
supply chain [4,52]. Furthermore, selecting the most appropriate FWS requires
construction method, type of structure, and capacity of the stakeholder [4,5 professional
experience in the field of formwork engineering as well as expert advice [41], which should
there may be significant statistical differences or disagreements in the relati
level of FWS selection criteria among different groups of construction prof
company owners, project managers, construction managers, site engineers
gineers, procurement engineers, technical office engineers, formwork d
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 6 of 31

also provide the company owners with cost-effective FWS solutions [61]. As a result,
FWS selection is a group decision-making process [1] and may involve decision-makers
with different professional backgrounds. In the first stage of the proposed approach, a
decision-making team is formed, whose members are experts in formwork engineering. In
addition, the decision-making team should have the necessary proficiency and knowledge
of the project-specific requirements since FWS selection may greatly depend on the project
characteristics (e.g., structural design of the building construction project) [8,17,52].

3.2. Literature Review and Extraction of Experts’ Opinion

A total of 35 FWS selection criteria for building construction projects were identified
after a comprehensive literature review. Terzioglu et al.’s study [27] provides a detailed
discussion of these 35 FWS selection criteria and a critical review of the relevant literature.
Furthermore, Terzioglu et al. [52] conducted a questionnaire study in the Turkish building
construction sector, contributing to the applicability and validity of these FWS selection
criteria. Table 1 illustrates the FWS selection criteria identified in the literature review and
their brief descriptions. It should be noted that the criteria in Table 1 represent the complete
set of FWS selection criteria in building construction projects. As part of the second stage
of the research methodology, face-to-face interviews are used to elicit the expert’s opinion
on the general applicability (i.e., independent from the case study) of the 35 FWS selection
criteria. However, some FWS selection criteria may be more critical than others [30,61],
and the number of the required criteria for the FWS selection process may vary from case
to case [48]. Hence, if necessary, the number of FWS selection criteria may be reduced
depending on the project-specific requirements, which will be explained in the next stage
of the proposed approach.

Table 1. FWS selection criteria for building construction projects, adapted from Refs. [27,52].

FWS Selection Criteria Description References

The degree of compatibility of the FWS with the
Compatibility with type of structural slab type of the structural slab (e.g., flat plate, two-way [10,26]
slab with beams etc.)
The degree of compatibility of the FWS with the
Compatibility with type of structural lateral
type of the structural lateral loads-supporting [40,44]
loads-supporting system
system (e.g., shear wall, bearing wall etc.)
The degree of effectiveness of the FWS based on
Total building height the total building height (i.e., low, mid, or high-rise [10,45]
building)
Compatibility with variation in column/wall The degree of compatibility of the FWS with the
[24,39]
dimensions and location variation in column/wall dimensions and location
The degree of compatibility of the FWS with
Compatibility with variation in openings/inserts
variation in openings/inserts dimensions and [24,39]
dimensions and location
location in the RC structure
High degree of repetition means the FWS can
Degree of repetition of the FWS complete repetitive floor cycles without any [1,38]
damage or modification to the FWS itself
The degree of effectiveness of the FWS based on
Number of floors [10,61]
the total number of floors
The degree of effectiveness of the FWS based on
Floor area [10,61]
the floor area
The degree of effectiveness of the FWS based on
Floor to floor height [29]
the floor-to-floor height
The degree of compatibility of the FWS with
Compatibility with uniformity of building [29]
changing layouts within the building
The degree of surface quality of the finished
Type of concrete finish [39]
concrete after the FWS has been removed
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 7 of 31

Table 1. Cont.

FWS Selection Criteria Description References

Floor cycle time of the FWS (i.e., erecting,
Speed of construction stripping, and moving time of the FWS) calculated [1,62]
as days/floor
The degree of labour quality required to utilize the
Labour quality [26,46]
FWS (e.g., skilled, or unskilled laborers)
The total area of the FWS erected/dismantled (m2 )
Labour productivity divided by the labour input (man-hours) [49,61]
calculated as m2 /man-hour
Variables such as hot and cold outdoor
Weather conditions temperatures or local wind speeds which may [38]
affect the FWS selection
The availability of adequate site access required by
Site access [24,39]
the FWS
The availability of adequate size of site required by
Size of site the FWS for assembly and/or disassembly [38]
processes
The cost of purchasing or renting the FWS
Initial cost of the FWS [1,46]
calculated as cost/m2
The cost of transporting the FWS to the job site and
Transportation cost of the FWS returning the FWS to the desired location for [61]
storage calculated as cost/m2
The cost of maintaining the FWS (e.g., cleaning,
Maintenance cost of the FWS [52]
repairing, and storing) calculated as cost/m2
The cost of striking, stripping and handling of the
Labour cost of the FWS [1,46]
FWS calculated as cost/m2
The degree of potential reuse of the FWS in other
Potential reuse of the FWS in other projects [38]
projects
The degree of crane time involvement required by
Hoisting equipment [24,26]
the FWS
In-house capability The degree of experience with the FWS [41,63]
The type of material used, potential of recycling,
FWS sustainability [1]
carbon footprint of the material used
FWS safety The degree of built-in formwork safety systems [47]
The degree of durability of the FWS after repetitive
FWS durability [48,63]
cycles
The degree of flexibility of the FWS in regard to the
FWS flexibility [1,47]
variation in the structural design of the building
The degree of compatibility of the FWS in regard
FWS compatibility to utilizing it in combination with different types [47,64]
of FWS
High degree of complexity means a large number
FWS complexity of accessories and materials are needed to strike [48]
the FWS
FWS weight The maximum weight of formwork panels [47,48]
FWS size The maximum size of formwork panels [48]
The degree of engineering services provided by
FWF technical support [47,63]
the formwork supplier (i.e., FWF)
The degree of logistical services provided by the
FWF logistical support [24]
formwork supplier (i.e., FWF)
The degree of BIM applications provided by the
FWF BIM support [1]
formwork supplier (i.e., FWF)

3.3. Development of the Decision Hierarchy

The first step in developing the decision hierarchy is identifying the project-related
FWS selection criteria and, second, the FWS alternatives. The FWSs for building construc-
tion projects are typically classified as either horizontal FWSs for concreting beams and
slabs and vertical FWSs for concreting walls and columns [46]. The horizontal and vertical
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 8 of 31

FWS alternatives are in principle different from each other since the fresh concrete load can
be applied vertically or horizontally on the FWS [9,24], and the allowable stripping time of
formwork for horizontal and vertical structural members are significantly different from
each other [65,66]. Moreover, horizontal FWS require temporary shoring structures (e.g.,
scaffolding systems, telescopic props) to support the FWS and transfer the fresh concrete
loads to the ground, whereas vertical FWSs require horizontal structural members (e.g.,
tie-rods, bracing) to transfer these loads [18]. In this regard, the selection of horizontal and
vertical FWSs (i.e., horizontal and vertical FWS alternatives) are treated separately from
each other as they have different functions [26]. In addition, numerous FWS alternatives
may be available on the local market [29], some of which can be inappropriate for a building
construction project. For instance, crane-independent self-climbing formwork (i.e., hy-
draulic climbing systems) can improve time and cost performance in high-rise buildings but
may not be effective and efficient in low-rise or mid-rise buildings [67]. Furthermore, the
transportation cost of an FWS can be an essential factor, especially in developing countries
where some FWSs may not be available and must be imported from other countries [27].
The FWS selection criteria associated with the local conditions (e.g., weather conditions,
site access) and the structural design (e.g., floor-to-floor height, total building height) of the
building construction project have a positive and significant influence on the FWS–FWF
characteristics (e.g., FWS durability, FWF technical support) related criteria [8,52]. The
compatibility of the FWS with the building construction project’s structural design may
also significantly affect the FWS selection process [68]. Consequently, the selection of the
FWS is highly dependent on the project-specific structural design and local conditions,
which the decision-making team may consider. Similarly, the cost (e.g., the initial cost of the
FWS, the labour cost of the FWS) and the performance (e.g., speed of construction, labour
productivity) related criteria are significantly influenced by the selected FWS [8,52].
Therefore, the project budget and schedule can be two important constraints that
the decision-making team may consider while identifying the relevant FWS selection
criteria and alternatives. Hence, based on previous literature review and project-specific
requirements, the decision-making team identifies the FWS selection criteria. In addition,
the decision-making team determines the FWS alternatives based on appropriateness and
market availability. The last step of this stage is the decision-making team’s approval of
the decision hierarchy. If there is a disagreement among the experts related to the decision
hierarchy, then the list of FWS selection criteria and FWS alternatives related to the building
Buildings 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9
construction project is modified until a consensus can be reached. The general structure of
the decision hierarchy [69] is shown in Figure 2:

Figure2.2.The
Figure The general
general structure
structure of theofdecision
the decision hierarchy.
hierarchy.

3.4. Determination of the Criteria Weight (R-AHP) and Ranking of the Alternatives (R-EDA
This study proposes an integrated approach that incorporates the R-AHP and th
EDAS methods for selecting the most appropriate FWS for building construction proj
Therefore, preliminaries of the rough set theory and rough numbers will be prese
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 9 of 31

3.4. Determination of the Criteria Weight (R-AHP) and Ranking of the Alternatives (R-EDAS)
This study proposes an integrated approach that incorporates the R-AHP and the
R-EDAS methods for selecting the most appropriate FWS for building construction projects.
Therefore, preliminaries of the rough set theory and rough numbers will be presented first,
followed by the R-AHP and the R-EDAS methodologies utilized in the proposed MCDM
approach of this study.

3.4.1. Rough Set Theory and Rough Numbers

Since FWS selection involves a group decision-making process, the use of MCDM
methods in this selection problem presents two major challenges: (1) how to combine
the individual judgements and preferences of different experts and (2) how to manage
their subjectivity. Several studies have successfully integrated the subjective judgments of
decision makers into the decision-making process using uncertainty theories and different
MCDM methods. For instance, Xu et al. [70] used the fuzzy decision-making trial and
evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method to determine the critical barriers to the develop-
ment of hydrogen refuelling stations in China. Similarly, Wu et al. [71] utilized the fuzzy
MCDM technique to account for the vagueness of judgments when assessing renewable
energy sources in China. Therefore, in this study, rough numbers are proposed to address
these issues. Since its introduction by Pawlak [72], the rough set theory has demonstrated
its effectiveness as a mathematical tool to deal with uncertainty in the data [73]. As an
extension to rough set theory, the use of rough numbers [74] in combination with MCDM
methods to solve a particular selection problem has gained popularity in recent years,
especially in construction management, e.g., [75,76]. Rough set theory has certain advan-
tages over other set theories, such as fuzzy set theory, which also deals with uncertainty,
vagueness, and subjectivity in decision-making. For instance, according to Li et al. [54], a
rough number has two main advantages over a fuzzy number: (1) the descriptive informa-
tion from a rough number can more accurately represent the actual perceptions of experts
and decision-makers, hence increasing the objectivity of the original data, and (2) a rough
number incorporates the perspectives of all decision-makers combined, not just those of
individual decision-makers. Moreover, regarding a rough number, the measurement of
uncertainty is based on the vagueness already existing in the data itself [77]. In other words,
a rough number is determined directly from the collected data, whereas the fuzzy number
is a predefined value [54]. Hence, in contrast to other methods, the rough set theory relies
solely on the data’s intrinsic knowledge and requires no external assumptions or auxiliary
Buildings 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 32
information [78,79].
A rough number typically consists of a lower limit, an upper limit, and a rough
boundary interval that is dependent exclusively on the original data [78]. In addition,
based on
based on the
the lower
lower and
andupper
upperapproximations,
approximations,each
eachvague
vagueconcept
conceptmay
maybebeexpressed
expressedasas a
a couple of exact concepts [80], as shown in Figure
couple of exact concepts [80], as shown in Figure 3. 3.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. The basic concept
The basic concept of
of rough
rough set
set theory.
theory.

Suppose U is the universe which contains all objects, Y is an arbitrary object of U, R

is a set of t classes (G1, G2, …, Gt) that cover all the objects in U, R = {G1, G2, …, Gt}. If these
classes are ordered as G1 < G2 < … < Gt, then Y  U, Gq  R, 1  q  t, the lower approxi-
mation (𝐴𝑝𝑟(Gq)), upper approximation (𝐴𝑝𝑟(Gq)), and boundary region (Bnd(Gq)) of clas-
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 10 of 31

Suppose U is the universe which contains all objects, Y is an arbitrary object of U, R

is a set of t classes (G1 , G2 , . . . , Gt ) that cover all the objects in U, R = {G1 , G2 , . . . , Gt }. If
these classes are ordered as G1 < G2 < . . . < Gt , then ∀Y ∈ U, Gq ∈ R, 1 ≤ q ≤ t, the lower
approximation (Apr(Gq )), upper approximation (Apr(Gq )), and boundary region (Bnd(Gq ))
of classes Gq are defined as [78]:


Apr Gq = ∪ Y ∈ U/R(Y ) ≤ Gq (1)


Apr Gq = ∪ Y ∈ U/R(Y ) ≥ Gq (2)


Bnd Gq = ∪ Y ∈ U/R(Y ) 6= Gq  (3)
= Y ∈ U/R(Y ) > Gq ∪ Y ∈ U/R(Y ) < Gq
then, Gq can be represented by a rough number (RN(Gq )), which is determined by its
corresponding lower limit (Lim(Gq )) and upper limit (Lim(Gq )), where:

1 n
o
∑


Lim Gq = Y ∈ Apr Gq R (Y ) (4)
ML

1
∑



Lim Gq = Y ∈ Apr Gq R(Y ) (5)
MU




RN Gq = Lim Gq , Lim Gq (6)
where ML and MU are numbers of objects contained in Apr(Gq ) and Apr(Gq ), respectively.
The difference is defined as a rough boundary interval (IRBnd (Gq )):




IRBnd Gq = Lim Gq − Lim Gq (7)

A large value of the rough boundary interval denotes greater vagueness, whereas
a lower number indicates greater precision
 [81]. According to Zhai et al.
 [74], for two
rough numbers RN (α) = Lim(α), Lim(α) and RN ( β) = Lim( β), Lim( β) the arithmetic
operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division can be stated as follows:
 
RN (α) + RN ( β) = Lim(α) + Lim( β), Lim(α) + Lim( β) (8)
 
RN (α) − RN ( β) = Lim(α) − Lim( β), Lim(α) − Lim( β) (9)
 
RN (α) × RN ( β) = Lim(α) × Lim( β), Lim(α) × Lim( β) (10)
 
RN (α) ÷ RN ( β) = Lim(α) ÷ Lim( β), Lim(α) ÷ Lim( β) (11)
In addition, for a nonzero constant µ, the scalar multiplication of a rough number
RN (α) is:  
µ × RN (α) = µ × Lim(α), µ × Lim(α) (12)

3.4.2. R-AHP Method for Criteria Weighting

The AHP method is frequently utilized in various decision-making problems in con-
struction management, particularly for weighing criteria [82,83]. The AHP method enables
the measurement of preference consistency, manipulation of different decision-makers
and management of decision-making incorporating subjective judgements [78]. In ad-
dition, the AHP method is an excellent tool for analysing the selection of technological
systems [69], including industrial FWSs. As described in the preceding sections of this
study, the selection of the FWS may include several decision-makers with diverse profes-
sional backgrounds and motivations towards the building construction project, as well as
with different perceptions regarding the relative importance level of FWS selection criteria.
Since the decision-making process involves subjectivity and ambiguity, this study proposes
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 11 of 31

using rough numbers to aggregate individual assessments and calculate the weights of the
FWS selection criteria in combination with the AHP method (i.e., R-AHP).
The methodology for the R-AHP is presented as follows [78,84]:
Step 1: The decision-making team of k-experts is formed to identify the FWS selection
criteria and the FWS alternatives as well as to develop the decision hierarchy, which is
described in stages 1, 2, and 3 of the proposed approach in this study. The objective is
placed on the top of the hierarchical structure, followed by the FWS selection criteria in the
middle and the FWS alternatives at the bottom.
Step 2: Development of a group pairwise comparison matrix by asking each expert in
the decision-making team to conduct pairwise comparisons of the FWS selection criteria
to determine the weights of the criteria. The lth expert’s pairwise comparison matrix Bl is
given as follows:

1 l
x12 l 
· · · x1m
 xl 1 l 
· · · x2m
 21
Bl =  . (13)

. .. .. 
 .. .. . . 
l
xm1 l
xm2 ··· 1 m×m

where, l
xer (1 ≤ e ≤ m, 1 ≤ r ≤ m, 1 ≤ l ≤ k) is the relative importance of criterion e on
criterion r based on Saaty’s scale [85] given by lth expert, m is the number of FWS selection
criteria, and k is the total number of experts. In addition, xee l = 1, x l =1/x l and x l 6 = 0.
re er er
l
Calculation of the maximum eigenvalue λmax of matrix Bl and computation of the
consistency index CI l = (λlmax − m)/(m − 1).
Determining the random consistency index RI [86] using Table A1 based on the total
number of FWS selection criteria m and calculation of the consistency ratio CRl = CI l /RI.
Conducting the consistency test for each comparison matrix Bl . If CRl < 0.1, the
comparison matrix Bl is acceptable, otherwise the expert’s evaluation should be adjusted.
Finally, each expert’s judgment is aggregated in the form of an integrated comparison
matrix B e as follows:
xe12 · · · xe1m
 
1
 xe21 1 · · · xe2m 
e=
B (14)

 .. .. .. .. 
 . . . . 
xem1 xem2 · · · 1 m×m
n o
where, xeer = xer 1 , x2 , . . . , x k , xeer is the sequence of relative importance of criterion e on
er er
criterion r, which consists of k experts’ evaluation.
Step 3: Using Equations (1)–(6), translate the elements xer l in the integrated comparison

matrix B into rough number RN ( xer ):

e l

l k
l lL lU
RN ( xer ) = xer , xer (15)

where xer lL is the lower limit, and x lU is the upper limit of RN ( x l ). Then the rough sequence
er er
RN ( xeer ) is obtained as follows:
nl k l k l ko
1L 1U 2L 2U kL kU
RN ( xeer ) = xer , xer , xer , xer , . . . , xer , xer (16)

The average rough number RN ( xer ) is calculated using the rough arithmetic
Equations (8)–(10): l k
L
RN ( xer ) = xer , xU
er (17)
1L + x2L + · · · + x kL
xer
L er er
xer = (18)
k
1U + x2U + · · · + x kU
xer er er
xU
er = (19)
k
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 12 of 31

L is the lower limit and xU is the upper limit of average rough number RN ( x ).
where xer er er
The rough comparison matrix M is formed as follows:
L , xU
   L U 

 d1, 1c  · · ·  x1m

x12 12 , x1m
 x L , xU L , xU 

 21 21 d1, 1c · · · x2m 2m 
M= .. .. .. ..  (20)
.
 L . U  . .
 
L , xU
 
xm1 , xm1 xm2 m2 ··· d1, 1c m×m

Step 4: In the final step the rough-based criteria weights wi and its normalized coun-
terpart wi0 are calculated as follows:
q q 
m m
wi = dwiL , wU
i c = m
∏ r =1
L,
xer m
∏ r =1
xU
er (21)

& %
wi wiL wU
wi0 =
=
, i
i = 1, 2, . . . , m (22)
max wU max wU max wU


i i i

3.4.3. R-EDAS Method for Alternative Evaluation

In general, the AHP method by itself can yield good results in MCDM problems, but
better results are frequently obtained by combining AHP with other MCDM techniques [87].
The EDAS method is one of the recently developed MCDM methods [88] and its extended
version using rough numbers (i.e., R-EDAS) is even more recent [76,89]. Therefore, only a
few studies in the literature combine rough numbers with the EDAS method, e.g., [76,89].
However, the EDAS method is an essential decision-making tool in everyday situations
where parameter conflicts are frequent [76]. In addition, its popularity among the MCDM
methods to solve engineering problems and/or business decision-making problems is
rising, e.g., [90–94]. Moreover, the EDAS method is frequently combined with the AHP
method in its traditional or extended forms [95].
The R-EDAS method provides objective aggregation of experts’ evaluation by con-
sidering ambiguity and subjectivity in the group decision-making process [76]. In this
method, the assessments of the alternatives are based on the measurements of positive
and negative deviations/distances from the average solution, which is evaluated using all
criteria [88]. In accordance with the previously developed decision hierarchy consisting
of m FWS selection criteria (Cm ), n FWS alternatives (An ), and k experts, and in line with
Stevic et al.’s study [89], the following steps are presented for the R-EDAS method:
Step 1: The individual decision matrices of k experts are transformed into a single
group rough matrix GRM using Equations (1)–(12) and are presented as follows [74]:

 C1   LC2 U  ···  L Cm U 
 
A1  x L , x U ···
 11 11
A2  x L , xU   x12 , x12 
L , xU
 x1m , x1m  
L , xU 

GRM =  21 21 x22 22 ··· x2m 2m  (23)
. . . .. .. .. .. 
. .
An   L . U  L . U 
 
L , xU

xn1 n1 xn2 , xn2 ··· xnm , xnm n×m

Step 2: The average solution matrix RN(AVj ) for all criteria is obtained as shown in
Equation (24) using Equation (25):
l k
RN ( AVj ) = AVjL , AVjU (24)
1× m

xijL xijU
& %
n xij
∑ n
=
n n
, (25)
i =1
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 13 of 31

Step 3: Calculation of the positive distance RN(PDA) and the negative distance
RN(NDA) from the average solution based on all criteria as shown in Equations (26)
and (27), respectively, using Equations (28)–(31):
l k
RN ( PDA) = PDAijL , PDAU
ij n×m (26)
l k
RN ( NDA) = NDAijL , NDAU
ij n×m (27)

To determine the elements of matrices shown in (26) and (27), it is required to consider
the type of criterion, i.e., whether the criterion belongs to the benefit group or the cost (i.e.,
expense) group. If the criterion belongs to the benefit group (i.e., it needs to be maximized),
then RN(PDA) and RN(NDA) are calculated as follows:
" L
xij − AVjU xijU − AVjL
#!
RN ( PDA) = max 0, , (28)
AVjU AVjL

AVjL − xijU AVjU − xijL

" #!
RN ( NDA) = max 0, , (29)
AVjL AVjU

If the criterion belongs to the expense group (i.e., it needs to be minimized), then
RN(PDA) and RN(NDA) are calculated as follows:

AVjL − xijU AVjU − xijL

" #!
RN ( PDA) = max 0, , (30)
AVjL AVjU

xijL − AVjU xijU − AVjL

" #!
RN ( NDA) = max 0, , (31)
AVjU AVjL

Since rough numbers are used in Equations (28)–(30), it may be possible that the lower
limit may have a negative value while the upper limit has a positive value, or in some cases,
both the lower and upper limit may have negative values [89]. Therefore, the following
constraints or rules in Equations (32)–(34) are required to ensure that the negative values
are reduced to positive values or zero.

i f PDAijL + PDAU
ij ≤ 0 then RN ( PDA ) = 0 (32)

h i
i f PDAijL + PDAU L U L U
ij > 0, while PDAij > 0 and PDAij > 0, then RN ( PDA ) = PDAij , PDAij (33)

i f PDAijL + PDAU L U L U
ij > 0, but PDAij < 0 and PDAij >0, then RN ( PDA ) = PDAij , PDAij (34)

Equations (32)–(34) can be applied similarly for RN(NDA). These equations can be
interpreted as follows: (1) if the sum of the lower limit and the upper limit is less than zero,
then the rough number has zero value, (2) if the lower limit and the upper limit have both
positive values, then the rough number keeps its value, and (3) if the lower limit has a
negative value and the upper limit has a positive value, but the sum of these numbers is
a positive number, then the rough number takes its absolute value (i.e., the lower limit is
changed to a positive value).
Step 4: Determining the weighted matrices RN(VPi ) and RN(VNi ) using the previously
determined normalized criteria weights (wi0 ) and the following equations:
l k
RN (VPi ) = vpijL , vpU
ij vpijL = wiL 0 × pdaijL vpU U0 U
ij = wi × pdaij (35)
n×m
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 14 of 31

l k
RN (V Ni ) = vnijL , vnU
ij vnijL = wiL 0 × ndaijL vnU U0 U
ij = wi × ndaij (36)
n×m

where, wiL 0 and wU 0 0

i are the lower and upper limits of the normalized criteria weights (wi ).
Step 5: Calculation of the sum of weighted matrices RN(SPi ) and RN(SNi ) are as follows:
m
RN (SPi ) = dspiL , spU
i c= ∑ dvpijL , vpUij c (37)
j =1

m
RN (SNi ) = dsniL , snU
i c= ∑ dvnijL , vnUij c (38)
j =1

Step 6: Normalization of the sum of weighted matrices RN(SPi ) and RN(SNi ) as follows:

spiL , spU
 
RN ( NSPi ) =  L i U (39)
max spi , spi

sniL , snU
 
i
RN ( NSNi ) = 1 − (40)
max sniL , snU
 
i
Step 7: Calculation of the RN(ASi ) values for each alternative and ranking them in
descending order:
1
RN ( ASi ) = [ NSPi + NSNi ] (41)
2
The alternative with the highest RN(ASi ) value represents the most appropriate
FWS alternative.

3.5. Validation of the Results and Decision Making

First, the proposed approach to select the most appropriate FWS for building construc-
tion projects is validated using other MCDM methods involving rough numbers. In other
words, the robustness and stability of the solution (i.e., ranking order) obtained by the
R-EDAS approach may be verified by a comparative analysis based on other rough MCDM
methods, e.g., [96,97]. In the final step of the proposed approach, the decision-making team
selects the FWS based on the validated final rankings.

4. Case Study
In this section, a real-life case study is presented to evaluate the applicability of
the proposed approach for selecting the most appropriate FWS in building construction
projects. The project consisted of the in-situ RC construction of residential buildings in the
Turkish city of Izmir. The project included both high-rise (e.g., tower structure) and low-rise
building structures (e.g., underground parking) with different structural design parameters,
which may have a significant effect on the selection of FWS alternatives [27]. The total
area of RC construction was 150,000 m2 , situated on an area of 20,700 m2 and consisting
of three towers, a mezzanine floor, and a parking area with four floors underground. The
total number of floors above the ground in the first, second and third towers were 37, 38,
and 31, while the typical floor areas were 850 m2 , 850 m2 , and 700 m2 , respectively. The
typical floor-to-floor height for the towers and underground parking was 3 m, while it was
5 m for the mezzanine floor. The structural slab system of the building construction project
included areas mostly designed as flat slabs (i.e., flat plate) and in some areas as slabs
with beams (i.e., two-way slab supported by beams) [24]. Once the underground parking
structure was completed, the FWS had to be implemented on the mezzanine and tower
floors without changing the FWS to minimize time and material waste, and additional costs.
Hence, the FWS needed to be adaptable to different heights and variations in RC structural
design (i.e., to areas with a flat slab system and with slabs with beams). Moreover, the
floor area of the underground parking and mezzanine floor (on average 16,000 m2 ) was
significantly higher than the floor area of the tower structures (700–850 m2 ). Therefore, the
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 15 of 31

selected FWS needed to provide the optimum cycle time with the optimum amount of FWS
material for both large and small floor areas. In addition, the building construction project’s
maximum height was 120 m. Therefore, significant wind loads had to be anticipated during
the construction phase. In this regard, the tower crane’s performance and the selected
FWS’s performance may be impacted by high wind loads, resulting in inefficient utilization
of crane time and the FWS [98]. It should be noted that the proposed approach in this study
may be implemented for selecting horizontal and/or vertical FWS alternatives. However,
in this case study, only horizontal FWS were investigated, primarily because horizontal
FWS are more important than vertical FWS in building construction projects, especially
high-rise ones [99]. In general, horizontal FWSs may demand a larger initial investment, be
more labour intensive [100], and require higher floor cycle time than vertical FWSs [65].

4.1. Formation of the Decision-Making Team and Development of the Decision Hierarchy
In general, a decision-making team should consist of several experts in a specific
field [75]. Prior studies that have employed an integrated rough MCDM approach, similar
to this study’s methodology, to solve a specific selection problem, conducted expert surveys
using the opinions of three to five experts, e.g., [76,97]. In this case study, a decision-
making team consisting of five experts was formed. Even though all the experts on the
decision-making team were highly skilled and had at least twenty years of experience in the
field of formwork engineering, they came from various professional backgrounds. In this
regard, it was intended to minimize bias and increase the objectivity of the decision-making
process by incorporating construction professionals’ diverse perceptions and perspectives
regarding the relative importance of FWS selection criteria [52]. Furthermore, involving
the FWF in the formwork plan and design phases with other stakeholder groups (e.g.,
the engineer and the contractor) may reduce design errors and change orders during the
construction phase [51]. The decision-making team consisted of the three stakeholder
groups commonly involved in the FWS supply chain, which are the engineer, the contractor,
and the FWF [4]: (1) one expert represented the engineer, who was responsible for the
design of the building’s RC structural frame, (2) three experts represented the contractor,
two of whom worked as the on-site construction team (i.e., project manager/construction
manager) and the other as the company’s owner, and (3) one expert represented the FWF
(i.e., formwork design/formwork sales engineer). The demographic information of the five
experts in the decision-making team is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Demographic information of the experts in the decision-making team.

Category Response Number of Experts Percentage (%)

Bachelor’s or equivalent 1 20.0
Educational level Master’s or equivalent 3 60.0
Doctoral or equivalent 1 20.0
40–49 4 80.0
Age
≥50 1 20.0
21–30 4 80.0
Work experience
≥31 1 20.0
Company owner 1 20.0
Project manager/construction
2 40.0
manager
Professional title Technical office/design
1 20.0
engineer
Formwork design/formwork
1 20.0
sales engineer

The decision-making team selected 20 out of 35 FWS selection criteria presented in

Table 1, which was previously determined based on the initial literature review and experts’
opinions. The selected criteria were project-related and, at the same time, represented
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 16 of 31

the most important FWS selection criteria identified by Terzioglu et al. [52] in the Turkish
building construction sector. The FWS selection criteria used in the case study and their
corresponding indices are shown in Table 3. In addition, the decision-making team decided
which FWS selection criteria belonged to the benefit group and which to the expense group.
Initial cost of the FWS (C1), speed of construction (C2), hoisting equipment (C8) and labour
cost of the FWS (C14) were assigned as expense criteria (i.e., criteria should be minimized),
while the others were assigned as benefit criteria (i.e., criteria should be maximized).

Table 3. FWS selection criteria determined by the decision-making team for the case study.

Index FWS Selection Criteria

C1 Initial cost of the FWS
C2 Speed of construction
C3 Degree of repetition of the FWS
C4 Compatibility with type of structural slab
C5 Compatibility with type of structural lateral loads-supporting system
C6 Potential reuse of the FWS in other projects
C7 FWS durability
C8 Hoisting Equipment
C9 Compatibility with uniformity of building
C10 Compatibility with variation in column/wall dimensions and location
C11 Labour productivity
C12 Number of floors
C13 Total building height
C14 Labour cost of the FWS
C15 Floor to floor height
C16 Labour quality
C17 FWS flexibility
C18 FWF technical support
C19 FWS safety
C20 FWS sustainability

Finally, six horizontal FWS alternatives for building construction projects that are
applicable to the case study have been selected for further evaluation and are briefly
described below:
(1) Alternative 1 (A1): This alternative incorporates the “Table FWS” to be used with
flat slabs [101–103] and the conventional FWS to be used with beams [9]. In general,
the “Table FWS” is a pre-assembled and interconnected FWS consisting of plywood
sheeting, secondary and primary/main girders (e.g., composed of timber or steel ma-
terial and fabricated in standard sizes), and a shoring system (e.g., usually telescopic
steel props or steel frames) [46,101]. As the “Table FWS” provides a high degree
of repetition, it is mainly employed for flat slab structures in high-rise construction
projects to ensure maximum efficiency [10,102]. However, the “Table FWS” requires
sufficient crane capacity and crane time involvement to be moved from one location
to another [101,102].
The conventional FWS is considered the most basic and common FWS among all
FWSs [43,61], comprised of plywood sheeting, timber girders, and telescopic props [30].
Since the components of the conventional FWS are not interconnected, the FWS must
be assembled on-site, necessitating a large number of formwork labourers for formwork
activities [61]. On the other hand, the conventional FWS does not demand a high level
of skilled labourers, and it may be a cost-effective FWS alternative, particularly in low-
rise building construction projects [24]. Moreover, the components of the conventional
FWS may be moved by hand or by crane to different locations, which provides additional
flexibility to the conventional FWS compared to others [9,104].
(2) Alternative 2 (A2): This alternative combines the early striking panel (i.e., drop-head)
FWS for flat slabs [46,102] with the conventional FWS to be used with beams. The
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 17 of 31

components of the drop-head FWS include lightweight aluminium panels, steel drop-
heads with early striking features and steel (or aluminium) telescopic props [105].
This FWS requires a higher initial cost than other FWS alternatives [10]. However,
it can be a cost-effective FWS for high-rise building construction projects provided
skilled labour (i.e., high-quality labour) is employed [24,46]. On the other hand, since
this FWS comprises modular and standard elements (e.g., aluminium panels) with a
high initial cost, it may not be the appropriate FWS alternative for small-size building
projects [0] or buildings with irregular floor layouts [11]. Depending on the slab
thickness and the ambient temperature, the formwork panels can be removed entirely
within 24 h if the FWS’s drop-head feature is utilized [105]. Therefore, the drop-head
FWS may provide a high degree of repetition and low floor cycle time (e.g., fast speed
of construction).
(3) Alternative 3 (A3): This alternative incorporates the shore-brace FWS using scaffolding
as shoring towers for flat slabs and beams [46,102]. Except for the scaffold-type shoring
towers [9,18], the remaining shore-brace FWS components are comparable to the
“Table FWS”. The shoring towers consist of steel frames connected by diagonal bracing.
Unlike the “Table FWS”, however, this FWS is not preassembled or interconnected,
necessitating manual transportation of all components to the desired location, typically
by crane [18,102]. This FWS may have the advantage that the flat slab and the beams
are manufactured using the same FWS. Moreover, because bracing is utilized, the
shore-brace FWS may have an exceptionally high load-bearing capacity [18,46,102].
(4) Alternative 4 (A4): This alternative is the conventional FWS previously described. In
this alternative, the flat slab and the beams are manufactured using the conventional
FWS. It should be noted that the conventional FWS, if utilized for the entire building
structure (i.e., both for slabs and beams), has the highest floor cycle time and the
highest percentage of material waste among all FWS alternatives but requires a low
initial investment [106–108].
(5) Alternative 5 (A5): This alternative is the “Tunnel FWS”, which is commonly used in
residential building construction with repetitive building layouts [109]. The “Tunnel
FWS” can provide a high degree of repetition and may be removed within 72 h,
provided the RC reaches its required strength [62]. Consequently, the “Tunnel FWS”
has a low floor cycle time (i.e., fast speed of construction) and may be a cost-effective
alternative for large-scale projects with a uniform or identical structural design layout
within the building [110]. On the other hand, the “Tunnel FWS” requires particular
considerations in the ready-mix concrete to speed the curing time [111], and the RC
structure should be designed to allow for monolithic casting (i.e., walls and slabs are
constructed continuously) [112]. Moreover, the initial cost of the “Tunnel FWS” may
be significantly higher than that of other FWSs [24,113].
(6) Alternative 6 (A6): This alternative is the more recently developed plastic FWS com-
posed of high strength, high durability, and lightweight polymer material [114]. Since
the components of the plastic FWS are almost entirely recyclable, it may be more
sustainable and may have lower life-cycle costs than other FWSs [115]. In addition,
the lightweight plastic FWS may have lower labour cost because its components may
be moved manually and do not require crane availability [116]. Some FWFs have
developed a plastic FWS that can handle both horizontal and vertical RC structural
members (i.e., walls, columns, and slabs) to be manufactured with the same FWS
components. The plastic FWS used with the slab provides early striking (i.e., early re-
moval) features without utilising drop heads. In general, the early striking of the FWS
may improve the time and cost performance of the project, but necessary precautions
should be taken to ensure the integrity and the quality of the RC structure [117].
Figure 4 depicts the final decision hierarchy for selecting the most appropriate FWS
for the building construction project in this case study, based on 20 FWS selection criteria
and six FWS alternatives.
 cautions should be taken to ensure the integrity and the quality of the RC structu
[117].
Figure 4 depicts the final decision hierarchy for selecting the most appropriate FW
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 for the building construction project in this case study, based on 20 FWS selection
18 of 31 crite
and six FWS alternatives.

Figure 4. Final
Figure decision
4. Final hierarchy
decision forthe
hierarchy for thecase
case study.
study.

4.2. Results of the R-AHP Method for Criteria Weighting

4.2. Results of the R-AHP Method for Criteria Weighting
To select the most appropriate FWS alternative, the R-AHP is used to aggregate the
To select the
individual mostofappropriate
opinions FWS alternative,
the experts regarding the relativethe R-AHP level
importance is used to FWS
of the aggregate
selectionopinions
individual criteria andoftothe
determine
expertstheregarding
weights of each criterion. For
the relative this purpose,
importance first,of
level each
the FWS
expert’s individual judgments are collected, then the pair-wise comparison matrices are
lection criteria and to determine the weights of each criterion. For this purpose, first, ea
constructed using Equation (13) and step 2 in Section 3.4.2 of this study. The individual pair-
expert’s
wiseindividual judgments
comparison matrices of theare collected,
experts then
as well as theirthe pair-wise comparison
corresponding consistency ratiosmatrices
constructed
l using Equation
CR are presented (13)
in Table A2. Alland step
five of 2 in Section
the comparison 3.4.2 are
matrices of this study.
acceptable The
since theindividu
values for CRl < 0.10 (l = 1, 2, . . . , 5). The integration of each individual comparison matrix
is performed using Equation (14), and the integrated comparison matrix B e is obtained as
illustrated in Table 4:

Table 4. Integrated comparison matrix.

Criteria C1 C2 . . . C19 C20

C1 {1,1,1,1,1} {2,3,3,4,1} . . . {4,3,4,4,3} {5,3,5,6,3}
C2 {1/2,1/3,1/3,1/4,1} {1,1,1,1,1} . . . {3,4,4,4,4} {5,4,5,4,4}
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
C19 {1/4,1/3,1/4,1/4,1/3} {1/3,1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4} . . . {1,1,1,1,1} {1,2,2,1,2}
C20 {1/5,1/3,1/5,1/6,1/3} {1/5,1/4,1/5,1/4,1/4} . . . {1,1/2,1/2,1,1/2} {1,1,1,1,1,1}

The elements of B e are translated into rough numbers and the integrated comparison
matrix is converted into a rough comparison matrix using Equations (1)–(10). For instance,
for the sequence xe12 = {2, 3, 3, 4, 1} we get:

Lim(2) = 12 (2 + 1) = 1.50, Lim(2) = 14 (2 + 3 + 3 + 4) = 3.00

Lim(3) = 14 (2 + 3 + 3 + 1) = 2.25, Lim(3) = 13 (3 + 3 + 4) = 3.33
Lim(4) = 15 (2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 1) = 2.60, Lim(4) = 4.00
Lim(1) = 1.00, Lim(1) = 51 (2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 1) = 2.60

l ) can be expressed in rough numbers as follows:

Thus, RN ( x12
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 19 of 31

1 )
RN ( x12 = d1.50, 3.00c
2
RN ( x12 ) = d2.25, 3.33c
3 )
RN ( x12 = d2.25, 3.33c
4 )
RN ( x12 = d2.60, 4.00c
5 )
RN ( x12 = d1.00, 2.60c
The generated rough sequences reflect the uncertainty of the experts in the decision-
making team, which is the outcome of nonconformity in the criteria evaluation [89]. The
average rough number RN ( x12 ) is obtained using Equations (17)–(19):
1L + x2L +···+ x kL
x12
L = 12 12 1.50+2.25+2.25+2.60+1.00
x12 k = 5 = 1.92
1U + x2U +···+ x kU
x12
U = 12 12 3.00+3.33+3.33+4.00+2.60
x12 k = 5 = 3.25
The final average rough number is represented in the form of RN ( x12 ) = d1.92, 3.25c.
This procedure is applied to every element xeer of the integrated comparison matrix to
obtain the rough comparison matrix M given in Equation (20).

d1.00, 1.00c d1.92, 3.25c · · · d3.36, 3.84c d3.68, 5.09c

 
d0.34, 0.66c d1.00, 1.00c · · · d3.64, 3.96c d4.16, 4.64c
.. .. .. ..
 
M=
 .. 
 . . . . . 

d0.26, 0.30c d0.25, 0.28c · · · d1.00, 1.00c d1.36, 1.84c
d0.21, 0.29c d0.22, 0.24c · · · d0.58, 0.82c d1.00, 1.00c 20×20
The last step of the R-AHP method is to calculate the rough-based criteria weights wi
(for i = 1,2, . . . , 20) and its normalized counterpart wi0 using Equations (21) and (22).

 

 d2.55, 3.26c, d2.10, 2.68c, d0.91, 1.09c, d1.58, 1.96c, d0.52, 0.59c,
d0.55, 0.73c, d1.35, 1.70c, d0.31, 0.38c, d0.77, 0.92c, d0.39, 0.45c,
 
wi =

 d3.80, 4.51c, d0.29, 0.33c, d0.26, 0.31c, d2.89, 3.35c, d0.80, 0.93c 
d2.60, 3.08c, d1.62, 2.04c, d0.28, 0.33c, d1.10, 1.33c, d0.92, 1.12c 
 


 d0.57, 0.72c, d0.47, 0.59c, d0.20, 0.24c, d0.35, 0.43c, d0.11, 0.13c,
d0.12, 0.16c, d0.30, 0.38c, d0.07, 0.08c, d0.17, 0.20c, d0.09, 0.10c,
 
wi0 =
d0.84, 1.00c,
 d0.06, 0.07c, d0.06, 0.07c, d0.64, 0.74c, d0.18, 0.21c 
d0.58, 0.68c, d0.36, 0.45c, d0.06, 0.07c, d0.24, 0.29c, d0.20, 0.25c
 

4.3. Results of the R-EDAS Method for Alternative Evaluation

Once the normalized criteria weights for the FWS selection criteria have been deter-
mined, the decision-making team evaluated the alternatives based on all criteria. It should
be noted that some criteria were evaluated quantitatively, as described in Table 1 (i.e., not
on a scale-based system). The units of these quantitative criteria in accordance with the
relevant literature are as follows: C1 (initial cost of the FWS) in Euro per m2 [24], C2 (speed
of construction) in days per floor [10,26], C11 (labour productivity) in m2 per man-hour [23],
and C14 (labour cost of the FWS) in Euro per m2 . The remaining criteria are qualitative
and were evaluated based on a scale from 1 to 9 [78], with 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 representing
“very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high” and “very high”, respectively, while 2, 4, 6 and 8 are
intermediate values. The evaluation data from the five experts for six FWS alternatives
(A1–A6) compared with 20 FWS selection criteria (C1–C20) are summarized in Table 5.
Using the evaluation data from Table 5, which is in principle the summary of the
individual decision matrices of the five experts, and using Equations (1)–(12), the rough
group matrix GRM is obtained:
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 20 of 31


C1 C2 ··· C11 ··· C20


A1 
 d 131.28, 167.12c · · · d2.74, 4.89c
d6.75, 8.08c · · · d4.94, 5.83c



A2 
 d 213.57, 266.07c · · · d6.48, 8.02c
d4.36, 5.25c

· · · d4.92, 6.56c


A3 

GRM = .. ..

A4  d121.80, 172.72c d8.75, 10.08c . d2.09, 3.45c . d4.92, 6.56c
A5  d81.60, 111.60c d10.94, 11.83c · · · d1.63, 2.16c · · · d3.65, 4.35c
 
 

A6  d266.73, 296.73c d3.65, 4.35c · · · d4.80, 5.88c · · · d4.09, 6.92c




d198.18, 214.43c d6.65, 7.35c · · · d4.53, 5.15c · · · d7.02, 8.54c 6×20

Table 5. Evaluation data for FWS selection.

Alt. Experts Evaluation Criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20
1 150.00 9.00 7 4 3 5 7 7 5 3 5.00 6 4 1.90 5 6 3 2 4 4
2 160.00 7.00 5 6 5 4 7 9 6 4 2.75 7 7 1.70 7 7 3 6 4 5
A1 3 165.00 6.00 5 5 4 5 6 8 4 5 3.50 6 6 1.80 6 7 4 5 4 6
4 100.00 8.00 5 8 1 4 6 7 6 2 6.00 7 2 2.10 4 5 3 2 3 6
5 180.00 7.00 6 5 4 5 6 8 5 5 1.75 6 6 1.70 6 7 4 5 5 6
1 210.00 6.00 8 4 3 5 4 2 5 3 7.25 5 4 0.70 3 5 5 5 4 7
2 275.00 4.00 8 7 7 5 8 4 7 6 7.00 8 8 0.60 5 9 7 8 6 6
A2 3 280.00 4.00 8 7 5 6 7 3 7 7 7.50 7 7 0.70 4 8 6 7 7 6
4 180.00 5.00 9 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 9.00 5 3 0.90 3 6 4 4 4 3
5 265.00 5.00 9 6 6 6 7 3 6 7 5.50 7 7 0.60 4 8 6 7 6 7
1 120.00 11.00 5 7 7 8 3 3 7 7 3.00 3 3 2.70 4 3 8 2 4 6
2 185.00 9.00 4 9 8 8 9 3 8 7 2.25 6 6 2.40 9 7 7 5 5 6
A3 3 180.00 8.00 4 9 8 9 8 2 7 7 3.50 6 6 2.50 9 6 6 4 5 7
4 80.00 10.00 4 6 7 7 3 2 8 4 4.00 2 2 3.20 5 3 7 3 4 3
5 180.00 9.00 5 8 7 9 8 2 7 6 1.25 5 5 2.40 9 6 5 4 5 7
1 85.00 12.00 4 8 7 6 3 3 7 7 2.00 3 3 3.10 3 3 8 3 4 4
2 115.00 11.00 3 6 7 5 5 3 8 5 2.00 4 5 3.00 4 5 5 4 2 4
A4 3 110.00 10.00 3 5 5 6 4 2 7 6 2.50 4 4 3.10 4 5 6 3 3 4
4 60.00 12.00 3 5 4 6 2 2 6 6 2.00 2 2 3.40 3 3 5 4 3 3
5 120.00 12.00 4 5 6 6 4 2 7 6 1.00 4 4 3.00 4 5 6 3 3 5
1 270.00 4.00 8 4 5 2 7 9 2 2 4.50 4 4 0.70 3 6 1 1 4 5
2 280.00 4.00 6 2 2 1 4 8 1 1 6.00 1 1 0.60 1 2 1 8 5 6
A5 3 300.00 4.00 7 1 1 1 4 8 1 1 6.60 2 2 0.70 1 4 1 6 5 7
4 250.00 5.00 9 2 6 1 4 7 2 3 5.00 4 3 0.90 2 3 1 2 3 2
5 310.00 3.00 7 1 1 1 5 9 1 1 4.50 2 2 0.60 1 4 1 7 6 8
1 190.00 7.00 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 5.50 3 3 0.80 3 3 5 2 3 6
2 225.00 7.00 7 6 7 5 7 5 7 8 5.00 7 7 0.80 5 9 7 8 4 8
A6 3 220.00 6.00 8 6 5 6 6 4 7 7 5.00 6 7 0.90 4 9 6 7 5 9
4 150.00 8.00 5 3 3 4 4 2 4 5 5.00 2 2 1.00 4 4 6 3 3 7
5 205.00 7.00 8 5 6 6 6 4 6 7 3.75 6 6 0.80 4 8 6 7 5 9

The average solution matrix RN(AVj ) for all criteria is calculated using
Equations (24) and (25):

 

 d165.53, 204.78c,d6.85, 7.82c,d5.53, 6.41c,d4.46, 6.03c,d3.90, 5.74c,

d4.67, 5.33c,d4.53, 6.17c,d4.08, 4.92c,d4.84, 5.87c,d4.08, 5.54c,
 
RN ( AVj ) =

 d3.71, 4.92c,d3.93, 5.38c,d3.33, 5.35c,d1.56, 1.74c,d3.75, 4.87c  
d4.63, 6.40c,d4.34, 5.19c,d3.51, 5.57c,d3.79, 4.74c,d4.92, 6.46c
 
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 21 of 31

The positive distance RN(PDA) and the negative distance RN(NDA) from the average
solution are calculated using Equations (28)–(31) based on the type of the criterion under
consideration (i.e., if the criterion belongs to the benefit group or the expense group). In
addition, the rules provided in Equations (32)–(34) are applied for each element in matrices
RN(PDA) and RN(NDA) to eliminate any negative values. For example, to calculate
the element (pda11 ) Equation (30) will be used since this criterion (C1) belongs to the
expense group:

AVjL − xijU AVjU − xijL

" #
165.53 − 167.12 204.78 − 131.28
 
, = , = [−0.01, 0.36]
AVjL AVjU 165.53 204.78

In this illustration, the lower limit of the rough number (pda11 ) has a negative value,
hence it is necessary to apply Equation (34) to convert the negative value to its positive
value [0.01, 0.36]. The positive distance RN(PDA) and the negative distance RN(NDA) are
obtained as follows:


C1 C2 ··· C11 ··· C20

A1 
 d0.01, 0.36c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c
A2 
 d0.00, 0.00c d0.23, 0.44c · · · d0.32, 1.16c

· · · d0.24, 0.33c
A3 

. ..
RN ( PDA) = d0.00, 0.00c . . d0.00, 0.00c


A4  d0.04, 0.41c . d0.24, 0.33c
d0.33, 0.60c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c

A5  
A6 d0.00, 0.00c d0.36, 0.53c · · · d0.03, 0.58c · · · d0.37, 0.41c


d0.00, 0.00c d0.07, 0.15c · · · d0.08, 0.39c · · · d0.09, 0.74c 6×20


C1 C2 ··· C11 ··· C20

A1 
 d 0.00, 0.00c d0.14, 0.18c · · · d0.32, 0.44c · · · d0.18, 0.24c
A2 
d 0.04, 0.61c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c

· · · d0.00, 0.00c
A3 

. ..
RN ( PDA) = d0.12, 0.47c . . d0.07, 0.57c


A4  d0.00, 0.00c . d0.00, 0.00c
A5  d0.00, 0.00c d0.40, 0.73c · · · d0.42, 0.67c · · · d0.12, 0.44c

 
A6  d0.30, 0.79c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c
d0.13, 0.30c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c 6×20

The weighted matrices RN(VPi ) and RN(VNi ) are calculated using Equations (35) and
(36) with the previously determined normalized criteria weights (wi0 ) from the R-AHP
method and are given as follows:


C1 C2 ··· C11 ··· C20

A1 
 d 0.01, 0.26c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c
A2 
 d 0.00, 0.00c d0.11, 0.26c · · · d0.27, 1.16c

· · · d0.05, 0.08c
A3 

. ..
RN (VPi ) = d0.00, 0.00c . . d0.00, 0.00c


A4  d0.02, 0.29c . d0.05, 0.08c
A5  d0.18, 0.43c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c

 
A6  d0.00, 0.00c d0.17, 0.32c · · · d0.02, 0.58c · · · d0.08, 0.10c
d0.00, 0.00c d0.03, 0.09c · · · d0.07, 0.39c · · · d0.02, 0.18c 6×20
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 22 of 31


C1 C2 ··· C11 ··· C20

A1 
 d 0.00, 0.00c d0.06, 0.11c · · · d0.27, 0.44c · · · d0.04, 0.06c
A2 
 d 0.02, 0.44c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c

· · · d0.00, 0.00c
A3 

. ..
RN (V Ni ) = d0.06, 0.28c . . d0.06, 0.57c


A4  d0.00, 0.00c . d0.00, 0.00c
A5  d0.00, 0.00c d0.19, 0.43c · · · d0.35, 0.67c · · · d0.02, 0.11c

 
A6  d0.17, 0.57c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c
d0.07, 0.21c d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c · · · d0.00, 0.00c 6×20

By using Equations (37) and (38) the sum of weighted matrices RN(SPi ) and RN(SNi )
are obtained as follows:

d0.15, 1.21c
 
d1.13, 3.88c
 
20
RN (SPi ) = dspiL , spU L , vpU c =  d0.49, 2.21c 
 
i c = ∑ d vp ij ij d0.32, 1.22c
j =1  
d0.68, 1.76c
d0.84, 2.44c
d0.60, 1.39c
 
d0.05, 0.50c
 
20
RN (SNi ) = dsniL , snU L , vnU c =  d0.62, 1.87c 
 
i c = ∑ d vn ij ij d1.19, 2.89c
j =1  
d1.05, 2.57c
d0.29, 0.49c

In this step, RN(SPi ) and RN(SNi ) are normalized utilizing Equations (39) and (40), as
illustrated by RN(NSP1 ) and RN(NSN1 ) (i = 1):

dsp1L ,spU1 c
h i
0.15 1.21
RN ( NSP1 ) =
max dsp2 ,sp2 c
L U = 3.88 1.13 = d0.04, 1.06c
,
L U
dsn1 ,sn1 c
h i
0.60 1.39
RN ( NSN1 ) = 1 − = 1 − 2.89 1.19 = d0.79, −0.17c
,
4 c
max dsn4L ,snU

In the final step of the R-EDAS method, the RN(ASi ) values are calculated for each alter-
native using Equation (41), and the alternatives are ranked in descending order. The results
of the R-EDAS method, as well as the rankings of the FWS alternatives, are summarized in
Table 6.

Table 6. Results of the R-EDAS method and rankings of the FWS alternatives.

Alternative SPi SNi NSPi NSNi ASi Rank

A1 [0.15, 1.21] [0.60, 1.39] [0.04, 1.06] [0.79, −0.17] 0.86 4
A2 [1.13, 3.88] [0.05, 0.50] [0.29, 3.42] [0.98, 0.58] 2.64 1
A3 [0.49, 2.21] [0.62, 1.87] [0.13, 1.95] [0.79, −0.57] 1.15 3
A4 [0.32, 1.22] [1.19, 2.89] [0.08, 1.07] [0.59, −1.43] 0.16 6
A5 [0.68, 1.76] [1.05, 2.57] [0.17, 1.55] [0.64, −1.16] 0.60 5
A6 [0.84, 2.44] [0.29, 0.49] [0.22, 2.15] [0.90, 0.59] 1.93 2

The results of the R-EDAS approach indicate that alternative A2 is the most appropriate
FWS alternative, followed by alternative A6. The ranking order of the FWS alternatives is
as follows: A2 > A6 > A3 > A1 > A5 > A4.

4.4. Results of the Comparative Analysis and Decision Making

In the literature, different MCDM techniques utilize diverse mathematical algorithms
and operators to prioritize criteria or evaluate alternatives (e.g., AHP, TOPSIS etc.) [118,119].
In some instances, the results may thus differ depending on the MCDM approach employed,
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 23 of 31

e.g., [89]. In a decision-making process, the purpose of a comparative analysis of different

MCDM approaches is to assess the stability of the proposed MCDM approach’s results
(i.e., the ranking order of the alternatives) [120]. The proposed approach is considered
appropriate for a certain selection problem if the alternatives are ranked consistently by
several MCDM approaches [121]. In this regard, the decision-making team can make an
objective judgement based on consistent results. Therefore, prior to the decision-making,
the results of the R-EDAS method were compared with three recently developed rough
MCDM methods to verify the stability of the proposed approach, namely, the rough multi-
attribute border approximation area comparison (R-MABAC) [81,84], the rough weighted
aggregated sum product assessment (R-WASPAS) [31,75] and the rough VlseKriterijumska
Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (R-VIKOR) [78]. The results of the comparative
analysis are shown in Figure 5. The stability of the rankings for the alternatives A2, A6, and
A4 is unaffected by observing the results from the other methods. Moreover, the R-EDAS,
R-WASPAS, and R-MABAC approaches provide identical results for all alternative rankings
(i.e., A2 > A6 > A3 > A1 > A5 > A4). On the other hand, compared with other methods, the
R-VIKOR method has a different ranking order for alternatives A1, A3, and A5. However,
the rankings of the first-best choice (A2) and second-best choice (A6), as well as the ranking
of A6, are the same compared with all the other methods. Consequently, alternative A2
(i.e., drop-head FWS for flat slabs and conventional FWS for beams) is the most appropriate
Buildings 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
FWS for this case study based on the proposed approach and the comparative analysis
results. As a result of these findings, the decision-making team selected alternative A2 for
the building construction project.

Figure
Figure Comparative
5. 5. analysis
Comparative of proposed
analysis approach with
of proposed other rough
approach MCDM
with methods.
other rough MCDM metho
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
The cost of the selected FWS may account for as much as 60% of the unit cost of the RC
structure [64] and as much as 15% of the total construction cost [50]. In addition, up to 75%
The cost of the selected FWS may account for as much as 60% of the unit
RC structure [64] and as much as 15% of the total construction cost [50]. In add
75% of the time spent on the construction of RC structures may be spent on
related activities [101]. In this regard, formwork-related activities can be a
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 24 of 31

of the time spent on the construction of RC structures may be spent on formwork-related

activities [101]. In this regard, formwork-related activities can be a substantial source of
time waste [12] and material waste [44], which can affect the time and cost performance of
the project. Therefore, selecting the FWS plays a crucial part in successfully completing an
RC construction project [29]. In this study, an integrated approach was proposed to select
the most appropriate FWS alternative for building construction projects, and it was used in
a real-life case study. First, a decision-making team of five experts was formed, and the
project-relevant FWS selection criteria and FWS alternatives were determined. Then, the
R-AHP method was utilized to determine the rough-based criteria weights of the FWS
selection criteria. According to the results of the R-AHP method, labour cost of the FWS
(C14), labour productivity (C11), initial cost of the FWS (C1), speed of construction (C2),
and labour quality (C16) were among the top five FWS selection criteria in the case study.
This result is in accordance with Terzioglu et al.’s [52] study, in which the initial cost of the
FWS and speed of construction were consistently ranked among the top five FWS selection
criteria for the Turkish building construction sector based on the combined perception and
perspectives of all respondent groups (e.g., engineer, contractor, and FWF). On the other
hand, the relative importance level (i.e., the weight of the criteria) of other FWS selection
criteria may vary depending on the type of project and the building structural design pa-
rameters (i.e., structural design-related criteria) [8,27]. For instance, the size of the building
construction projects (e.g., the total area of building construction) significantly affects some
FWS selection criteria, such as labour productivity [52]. Furthermore, depending on the
type of the project and the structural design of the structure [122,123], labour productivity
and labour cost of the FWS may be critical factors in building construction projects, par-
ticularly high-rise ones [22,124]. The weather conditions, such as high wind speeds, may
also affect the labour productivity of formwork-related activities [125]. Consequently, in
this case study, which could be regarded as a large-scale project (i.e., 20,000 m2 < 150,000
m2 ) [24] and consisted of three towers of high-rise building construction, where winds
speeds may be high, labour productivity, and labour cost of the FWS were identified as
critical FWS selection criteria.
Finally, using the criteria weights obtained from the R-AHP method, the R-EDAS
method was utilized to compare the six alternatives based on 20 FWS selection criteria.
In accordance with the results of the R-EDAS method and the comparative analysis, the
decision-making team selected FWS alternative A2 (i.e., drop-head FWS for flat slabs and
conventional FWS for beams), which was successfully implemented by the contractor in
the building construction project. Based on the feedback from the contactor, the selected
FWS both had a low floor cycle time (on average, eight days per floor (C2)) and a high
degree of repetition (C3). The construction team was able to strip the FWS after 36 h of
casting the concrete by using the drop-head feature of the FWS and back-propping the
RC structure to ensure structural integrity. The assembly and disassembly activities of the
FWS were performed by only three highly skilled workers (i.e., high labour quality (C16)),
and crane time involvement (i.e., hoisting equipment (C8)) was decreased because the
modular lightweight components of the FWS could be moved by hand. This was especially
important at high wind speeds on the upper floors when the tower crane was inoperable.
The initial cost of the FWS (C1) was high compared to most other FWS alternatives. On
the other hand, since the selected FWS provided high labour productivity (C11) and low
labour cost (C14) compared to others, the total cost for the FWS and its related activities was
substantially reduced. In addition, the building construction project was completed within
the planned project budget and schedule, while material and time waste were minimized
by the selected FWS, further validating the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The
proposed approach was recommended as an effective decision support tool for future FWS
selection problems.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 25 of 31

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Since the selection of the appropriate FWS depends on compromising and conflicting
criteria with a large number of FWS alternatives available, the majority of previous studies
have focused on using MCDM methods (e.g., crisp AHP, crisp TOPSIS etc.) to select
the appropriate FWS based on the perspectives of contractors or a particular group of
construction professionals, e.g., [30,38,47]. However, the selection of the FWS is a group
decision-making process in which different groups of construction professionals may
perform FWS selection (e.g., company owners, project managers, construction managers,
formwork design engineers etc.) [52]. In addition, the relative importance level of the
FWS selection criteria and the selected FWS may vary depending on the perspectives and
perceptions of these construction professionals [8]. Although previous studies considerably
contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the FWS selection problem, the uncertainty,
ambiguity, and subjectivity aspects of a group decision-making process [121,126] have
mostly been neglected. The subjective judgments of the decision-makers, as well as the
vagueness in the collected data from the experts, should be integrated into the MCDM
method to improve the objectivity of the FWS selection process. As a result, the main
objective of this study was to fill this critical knowledge gap. For this purpose, the proposed
integrated approach used rough numbers combined with recently developed MCDM
methods (i.e., R-AHP and R-EDAS) to overcome these issues [127]. In addition, the stability
of the proposed approach was validated by comparing the results with the R-MABAC,
R-WASPAS, and R-VIKOR methods. Finally, the proposed approach was implemented in
a real-life case study in Turkey. The contractor’s and decision-making team’s response to
project performance factors in the building construction project supported the usefulness
of the proposed approach.
The proposed approach in this study is intended to be an important decision support
tool for the FWS selection process in building construction projects. Mainly, it may be
used to aggregate the perspectives of the engineer, the contractor and the FWF during the
planning phase of the FWS since the early involvement of all stakeholders can improve
the performance of the FWS supply chain [4]. Consequently, a building construction
project’s time, cost, and quality performance may be improved by employing the proposed
methodology in this study for the FWS selection problem.
This study has the following limitations:
• The real-life case study in Section 4 is related to a residential building construction
project in Turkey. Hence different results may be obtained if the proposed approach is
applied to other types of construction projects in different countries.
• The real-life case study in Section 4 was applied to only the selection of horizontal FWS.
The selection of the vertical FWS may be performed using the proposed approach.
Based on the limitations of this study, the proposed MCDM approach for selecting
the most appropriate FWS may be performed for different types of projects and in other
countries to validate the results of this study. In addition, other rough MCDM methods
can be employed using the methodology described in this study. Hence, in future studies,
comparisons and validations with the results of this study should be made.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, T.T.; methodology, T.T.; software, T.T.; validation, T.T. and
G.P.; formal analysis, T.T.; investigation, T.T.; resources, T.T.; data curation, T.T.; writing—original
draft preparation, T.T.; writing—review and editing, G.P.; visualisation, T.T.; supervision, G.P. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: The material presented in this study is the authors’ own original work,
which has not been previously published elsewhere. The article is not currently being considered
for publication elsewhere. The article reflects the authors’ own research and analysis in a truthful
and complete manner. The article properly credits the meaningful contributions of co-authors and
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 26 of 31

co-researchers. All sources used are properly disclosed. All authors have been personally and actively
involved in substantial work leading to the paper, and will take public responsibility for its content.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Random consistency index (RI) [86].

m 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
RI 1598 1609 1618 1627 1634 1641 1647 1653

Table A2. Individual pair-wise comparison matrices of the experts.

Expert 1 (CR1 ) = 0.044 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

C1 1 2 3 2 5 4 2 7 3 6 1/2 9 8 1 4 1 2 8 4 5
C2 1/2 1 2 1 4 3 1 7 2 6 1/2 6 7 1 4 1 1 8 3 5
C3 1/3 1/2 1 1/2 2 2 1/2 4 1 3 1/4 4 4 1/4 1 1/4 1/2 3 1 1
C4 1/2 1 2 1 3 4 1 7 1 3 1/3 6 6 1/2 2 1/2 1 6 1 4
C5 1/5 1/4 1/2 1/3 1 2 1/4 2 1/4 1/3 1/7 2 2 1/6 1/2 1/6 1 2 1/4 1/3
C6 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/4 1/2 1 1/2 2 2 2 1/6 2 2 1/6 1 1/6 1/3 4 1/2 1/2
C7 1/2 1 2 1 4 2 1 6 1 4 1/3 6 5 1/2 2 1/2 1 5 1 2
C8 1/7 1/7 1/4 1/7 1/2 1/2 1/6 1 1/4 2 1/8 1 1 1/8 1/2 1/8 1/6 1 1/5 1/5
C9 1/3 1/2 1 1 4 1/2 1 4 1 2 1/4 4 4 1/3 1 1/4 1/2 4 1/4 1/5
C10 1/6 1/6 1/3 1/3 3 1/2 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 1/9 1 1 1/7 1/3 1/7 1/2 2 1/4 1/5
C11 2 2 4 3 7 6 3 8 4 9 1 9 9 1 8 1 3 9 3 4
C12 1/9 1/6 1/4 1/6 1/2 1/2 1/6 1 1/4 1 1/9 1 1 1/9 1/3 1/8 1/7 1/2 1/4 1/4
C13 1/8 1/7 1/4 1/6 1/2 1/2 1/5 1 1/4 1 1/9 1 1 1/9 1/3 1/8 1/7 1/2 1/4 1/4
C14 1 1 4 2 6 6 2 8 3 7 1 9 9 1 8 1 2 8 2 2
C15 1/4 1/4 1 1/2 2 1 1/2 2 1 3 1/8 3 3 1/8 1 1/4 1/4 3 1 1
C16 1 1 4 2 6 6 2 8 4 7 1 8 8 1 4 1 1 8 2 4
C17 1/2 1 2 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 1/3 7 7 1/2 4 1 1 7 2 4
C18 1/8 1/8 1/3 1/6 1/2 1/4 1/5 1 1/4 1/2 1/9 2 2 1/8 1/3 1/8 1/7 1 1/5 1/5
C19 1/4 1/3 1 1 4 2 1 5 4 4 1/3 4 4 1/2 1 1/2 1/2 5 1 1
C20 1/5 1/5 1 1/4 3 2 1/2 5 5 5 1/4 4 4 1/2 1 1/4 1/4 5 1 1

Expert 2 (CR2 ) = 0.097 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

C1 1 3 4 3 4 3 1 8 2 7 1/4 8 7 2 3 2 1 7 3 3
C2 1/3 1 3 2 3 2 2 6 1 7 1/4 6 8 2 4 2 2 8 4 4
C3 1/4 1/3 1 1/3 2 3 1/3 3 2 2 1/3 3 3 1/5 1 1/3 1/6 4 2 2
C4 1/3 1/2 3 1 2 3 2 8 2 4 1/4 7 7 1/3 3 1/3 2 7 1 3
C5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 3 1/5 3 1/4 1/3 1/6 3 3 1/5 1/3 1/6 2 3 1/5 1/4
C6 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 1 1 1 1/6 1 1 1/7 2 1/7 1/4 3 1 1
C7 1 1/2 3 1/2 5 1 1 5 2 3 1/4 5 4 1/3 1 1/2 2 6 2 1
C8 1/8 1/6 1/3 1/8 1/3 1 1/5 1 1/5 3 1/6 2 2 1/7 1/4 1/5 1/6 2 1/4 1/6
C9 1/2 1 1/2 1/2 4 1 1/2 5 1 3 1/3 3 3 1/4 1 1/4 1/3 4 1/3 1/6
C10 1/7 1/7 1/2 1/4 3 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1/8 2 2 1/7 1/4 1/7 1/3 3 1/4 1/6
C11 4 4 3 4 6 6 4 6 3 8 1 8 8 2 9 2 4 8 4 5
C12 1/8 1/6 1/3 1/7 1/3 1 1/5 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/8 1 2 1/8 1/4 1/6 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3
C13 1/7 1/8 1/3 1/7 1/3 1 1/4 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/8 1/2 1 1/8 1/4 1/6 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3
C14 1/2 1/2 5 3 5 7 3 7 4 7 1/2 8 8 1 9 2 3 9 3 3
C15 1/3 1/4 1 1/3 3 1/2 1 4 1 4 1/9 4 4 1/9 1 1/3 1/3 4 2 2
C16 1/2 1/2 3 3 6 7 2 5 4 7 1/2 6 6 1/2 3 1 2 9 3 5
C17 1 1/2 6 1/2 1/2 4 1/2 6 3 3 1/4 7 7 1/3 3 1/2 1 8 3 5
C18 1/7 1/8 1/4 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/6 1/2 1/4 1/3 1/8 2 2 1/9 1/4 1/9 1/8 1 1/4 1/4
C19 1/3 1/4 1/2 1 5 1 1/2 4 3 4 1/4 3 3 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 4 1 2
C20 1/3 1/4 1/2 1/3 4 1 1 6 6 6 1/5 3 3 1/3 1/2 1/5 1/5 4 1/2 1

Expert 3 (CR3 ) = 0.067 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

C1 1 3 2 1 5 3 2 8 3 6 1/3 9 7 1 4 1 3 7 4 5
C2 1/3 1 2 1 4 3 1 8 2 7 1/3 7 8 1 4 1 1 7 4 5
C3 1/2 1/2 1 1/3 2 2 1/3 4 2 4 1/5 4 4 1/4 1 1/4 1/2 3 1 1
C4 1 1 3 1 2 5 1 7 1 4 1/3 6 6 1/3 3 1/3 1 5 1 5
C5 1/5 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 3 1/4 2 1/3 1/3 1/7 3 2 1/5 1/2 1/6 1 2 1/4 1/4
C6 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/5 1/3 1 1/3 3 2 2 1/6 2 3 1/6 1 1/6 1/4 5 1/3 1/2
C7 1/2 1 3 1 4 3 1 7 1 2 1/4 6 5 1/2 1 1/3 1 5 1 2
C8 1/8 1/8 1/4 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/7 1 1/4 2 1/8 1 1 1/7 1/2 1/7 1/6 1 1/5 1/5
C9 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 3 1/2 1 4 1 2 1/4 3 3 1/3 1 1/4 1/3 4 1/4 1/6
C10 1/6 1/7 1/4 1/4 3 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 1/9 2 2 1/6 1/4 1/7 1/2 3 1/4 1/5
C11 3 3 5 3 7 6 4 8 4 9 1 8 8 1 8 1 2 7 4 3
C12 1/9 1/7 1/4 1/6 1/3 1/2 1/6 1 1/3 1/2 1/8 1 2 1/8 1/3 1/8 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3
C13 1/7 1/8 1/4 1/6 1/2 1/3 1/5 1 1/3 1/2 1/8 1/2 1 1/8 1/3 1/9 1/8 1/3 1/4 1/4
C14 1 1 4 3 5 6 2 7 3 6 1 8 8 1 8 1 2 7 2 3
C15 1/4 1/4 1 1/3 2 1 1 2 1 4 1/8 3 3 1/8 1 1/3 1/4 4 1 2
C16 1 1 4 3 6 6 3 7 4 7 1 8 9 1 3 1 1 8 3 5
C17 1/3 1 2 1 1 4 1 6 3 2 1/2 7 8 1/2 4 1 1 5 2 4
C18 1/7 1/7 1/3 1/5 1/2 1/5 1/5 1 1/4 1/3 1/7 2 3 1/7 1/4 1/8 1/5 1 1/5 1/5
C19 1/4 1/4 1 1 4 3 1 5 4 4 1/4 3 4 1/2 1 1/3 1/2 5 1 2
C20 1/5 1/5 1 1/5 4 2 1/2 5 6 5 1/3 3 4 1/3 1/2 1/5 1/4 5 1/2 1
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 27 of 31

Table A2. Cont.

Expert 4 (CR4 ) = 0.065 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

C1 1 4 3 1 5 3 2 7 3 6 1/4 6 7 1 4 2 3 8 4 6
C2 1/4 1 2 1 2 3 2 5 2 7 1/3 7 8 1 4 1 1 7 4 4
C3 1/3 1/2 1 1/4 2 2 1/3 4 2 4 1/5 4 4 1/4 1 1/4 1/2 3 1 1
C4 1 1 4 1 2 5 1 7 1 3 1/3 6 6 1/3 3 1/3 2 4 1 3
C5 1/5 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 2 1/4 3 1/3 1/2 1/7 3 2 1/5 1/2 1/6 1 2 1/4 1/4
C6 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/5 1/2 1 1/3 3 2 2 1/6 2 2 1/6 1 1/4 1/4 5 1/3 1/2
C7 1/2 1/2 3 1 4 3 1 7 1 3 1/4 4 5 1/2 1 1/3 1 3 1 2
C8 1/7 1/5 1/4 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/7 1 1/4 3 1/8 1 1 1/7 1/2 1/7 1/7 1 1/5 1/5
C9 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 3 1/2 1 4 1 2 1/4 3 3 1/3 2 1/4 1/3 4 1/4 1/6
C10 1/6 1/7 1/4 1/3 2 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 1/9 2 2 1/6 1/4 1/7 1/2 3 1/4 1/5
C11 4 3 5 3 7 6 4 8 4 9 1 8 7 1 6 1 4 7 3 4
C12 1/6 1/7 1/4 1/6 1/3 1/2 1/4 1 1/3 1/2 1/8 1 2 1/8 1/3 1/8 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3
C13 1/7 1/8 1/4 1/6 1/2 1/2 1/5 1 1/3 1/2 1/7 1/2 1 1/8 1/3 1/9 1/9 1/3 1/4 1/4
C14 1 1 4 3 5 6 2 7 3 6 1 8 8 1 9 1 2 7 2 2
C15 1/4 1/4 1 1/3 2 1 1 2 1/2 4 1/6 3 3 1/9 1 1/3 1/4 3 1 1
C16 1/2 1 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 7 1 8 9 1 3 1 1 8 2 4
C17 1/3 1 2 1/2 1 4 1 7 3 2 1/4 7 9 1/2 4 1 1 6 1 3
C18 1/8 1/7 1/3 1/4 1/2 1/5 1/3 1 1/4 1/3 1/7 2 3 1/7 1/3 1/8 1/6 1 1/5 1/5
C19 1/4 1/4 1 1 4 3 1 5 4 4 1/3 3 4 1/2 1 1/2 1 5 1 1
C20 1/6 1/4 1 1/3 4 2 1/2 5 6 5 1/4 3 4 1/2 1 1/4 1/3 5 1 1

Expert 5 (CR5 ) = 0.093 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

C1 1 1 3 2 4 5 2 8 4 8 1/3 6 5 2 3 2 1 5 3 3
C2 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 5 4 6 1/4 6 8 2 4 2 2 5 4 4
C3 1/3 1/2 1 1/3 2 3 1/3 3 2 2 1/3 3 3 1/5 1 1/3 1/6 4 2 2
C4 1/2 1/3 3 1 2 3 2 5 2 4 1/4 5 5 1/3 3 1/3 2 9 1 3
C5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 3 1/5 3 1/4 1/3 1/9 3 3 1/5 1/3 1/6 2 3 1/5 1/4
C6 1/5 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 1 1 1 1/9 1 1 1/7 2 1/7 1/4 3 1 1
C7 1/2 1 3 1/2 5 1 1 5 2 3 1/4 7 4 1/3 1 1/2 1 5 2 1
C8 1/8 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/3 1 1/5 1 1/5 3 1/6 2 2 1/7 1/4 1/5 1/6 2 1/4 1/6
C9 1/4 1/4 1/2 1/2 4 1 1/2 5 1 3 1/3 3 3 1/4 1 1/4 1/3 4 1/3 1/6
C10 1/8 1/6 1/2 1/4 3 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1/8 2 2 1/7 1/4 1/7 1/3 3 1/4 1/6
C11 3 4 3 4 9 9 4 6 3 8 1 8 9 2 9 2 4 9 4 5
C12 1/6 1/6 1/3 1/5 1/3 1 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/8 1 2 1/8 1/4 1/6 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3
C13 1/5 1/8 1/3 1/5 1/3 1 1/4 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/9 1/2 1 1/8 1/4 1/6 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3
C14 1/2 1/2 5 3 5 7 3 7 4 7 1/2 8 8 1 8 2 3 9 3 3
C15 1/3 1/4 1 1/3 3 1/2 1 4 1 4 1/9 4 4 1/8 1 1/3 1/3 4 2 2
C16 1/2 1/2 3 3 6 7 2 5 4 7 1/2 6 6 1/2 3 1 2 9 3 3
C17 1 1/2 6 1/2 1/2 4 1 6 3 3 1/4 7 7 1/3 3 1/2 1 6 3 5
C18 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/9 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/2 1/4 1/3 1/9 2 2 1/9 1/4 1/9 1/6 1 1/4 1/4
C19 1/3 1/4 1/2 1 5 1 1/2 4 3 4 1/4 3 3 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/3 4 1 2
C20 1/3 1/4 1/2 1/3 4 1 1 6 6 6 1/5 3 3 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/5 4 1/2 1

References
1. Safa, M.; Reinsma, S.; Haas, C.T.; Goodrum, P.M.; Caldas, C.H. A decision-making method for choosing concrete forming systems.
Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2016, 18, 53–64. [CrossRef]
2. Jarkas, A.M. Beamless or beam-supported building floors: Is buildability knowledge the missing link to improving productivity?
Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2017, 24, 537–552. [CrossRef]
3. Nguyen, L.D.; Nguyen, H.T. Relationship between building floor and construction labor productivity: A case of structural work.
Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2013, 20, 563–575. [CrossRef]
4. Terzioglu, T.; Polat, G.; Turkoglu, H. Analysis of industrial formwork systems supply chain using value stream mapping. J. Eng.
Proj. Prod. Manag. 2022, 12, 47–61. [CrossRef]
5. Kim, K.; Teizer, J. Automatic design and planning of scaffolding systems using building information modelling. Adv. Eng. Inform.
2014, 28, 66–80. [CrossRef]
6. Kim, K.; Cho, Y.; Zhang, S. Integrating work sequences and temporary structures into safety planning: Automated scaffolding-
related safety hazard identification and prevention in BIM. Autom. Constr. 2016, 70, 128–142. [CrossRef]
7. Lee, B.; Choi, H.; Min, B.; Ryu, J.; Lee, D.E. Development of formwork automation design software for improving construction
productivity. Autom. Constr. 2021, 126, 103680. [CrossRef]
8. Terzioglu, T.; Polat, G.; Turkoglu, H. Formwork System Selection Criteria for Building Construction Projects: A Structural
Equation Modelling Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 204. [CrossRef]
9. Hurd, M.K. Formwork for Concrete, 7th ed.; ACI (American Concrete Institute): Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005.
10. Shin, Y.; Kim, T.; Cho, H.H.; Kang, K.I. A formwork method selection model based on boosted decision trees in tall building
construction. Autom. Constr. 2012, 23, 47–54. [CrossRef]
11. Lee, C.; Ham, S. Automated system for form layout to increase the proportion of standard forms and improve work efficiency.
Autom. Constr. 2018, 87, 273–286. [CrossRef]
12. Ko, C.H.; Kuo, J.D. Making formwork construction lean. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 444–458. [CrossRef]
13. Kannan, M.; Santhi, M. Automated constructability rating framework for concrete formwork systems using building information
modeling. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 19, 387–413. [CrossRef]
14. Rosenbaum, S.; Toledo, M.; Gonzalez, V. Improving environmental and production performance in construction projects using
value-stream mapping: Case study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 1–11. [CrossRef]
15. Vilventhan, A.; Ram, V.; Sugumaran, S. Value stream mapping for identification and assessment of material waste in construction:
A case study. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 815–825. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Spitz, N.; Coniglio, N.; Libessart, L.; El Mansori, M.; Djelal, C. Characterizing tribological behavior of fresh concretagainst
formwork surfaces. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 303, 124233. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 28 of 31

17. Fischer, M.; Tatum, C.B. Characteristics of design-relevant constructability knowledge. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1997, 123, 253–260.
[CrossRef]
18. Peurifoy, R.L.; Oberlender, G.D. Formwork for Concrete Structures; McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
19. Jiang, L.; Leicht, R.M.; Kremer, G.E.O. Eliciting constructability knowledge for BIM-enabled automated, rule-based constructability
review: A case study of formwork. In Proceedings of the 2014 Construction Research Congress, Atlanta, GA, USA, 19–21 May 2014.
[CrossRef]
20. Hallowell, M.R.; Gambatese, J.A. Activity-based safety risk quantification for concrete formwork construction. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 2009, 135, 990–998. [CrossRef]
21. Lee, J.; Cho, J. An inference method of safety accidents of construction workers according to the risk factor reduction of the
Bayesian network model in linear scheduling. Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 1–12.
22. Zayed, T.; Mohamed, E. A case of productivity model for automatic climbing system. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2014, 21, 33–50.
[CrossRef]
23. Jarkas, A.M. The impacts of buildability factors on formwork labour productivity of columns. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16,
471–483. [CrossRef]
24. Hanna, A.S. Concrete Formwork Systems; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
25. Biruk, S.; Jaskowski, P. Optimization of vertical formwork layout plans using mixed integer linear programming. Int. J. Civ. Eng.
2017, 15, 125–133. [CrossRef]
26. Hanna, A.S.; Willenbrock, J.H.; Sanvido, V.E. Knowledge acquisition and development for formwork selection system. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 1992, 118, 179–198. [CrossRef]
27. Terzioglu, T.; Turkoglu, H.; Polat, G. Formwork systems selection criteria for building construction projects: A critical review of
the literature. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 49, 617–626. [CrossRef]
28. Darwish, M.; Elsayed, A.Y.; Nassar, K. Design and constructability of a novel funicular arched steel truss falsework. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 2018, 144, 04018002. [CrossRef]
29. Elbeltagi, E.; Hosny, O.; Elhakeem, A.; Abd-Elrazek, M.; El-Abbasy, M. Fuzzy logic model for selection of vertical formwork
systems. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 832–840. [CrossRef]
30. Hansen, S.; Siregar, P.H.R.; Jevica, J. AHP-based decision-making framework for formwork system selection by contractors. J.
Constr. Dev. Count. 2020, 25, 235–255. [CrossRef]
31. Stojić, G.; Stević, Ž.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Pamučar, D.; Vasiljević, M. A novel rough WASPAS approach for supplier selection in a
company manufacturing PVC carpentry products. Information 2018, 9, 121. [CrossRef]
32. Menekşe, A.; Akdağ, H.C. Distance education tool selection using novel spherical fuzzy AHP EDAS. Soft Comput. 2022, 26,
1617–1635. [CrossRef]
33. Stević, Z.; Vasiljević, M.; Puška, A.; Tanackov, I.; Junevičius, R.; Vesković, S. Evaluation of suppliers under uncertainty: A
multiphase approach based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy EDAS. Transport 2019, 34, 52–66. [CrossRef]
34. Karatop, B.; Taşkan, B.; Adar, E.; Kubat, C. Decision analysis related to the renewable energy investments in Turkey based on a
fuzzy AHP-EDAS-fuzzy FMEA approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 151, 106958. [CrossRef]
35. Toan, P.N.; Dang, T.-T.; Hong, L.T.T. Evaluating Video Conferencing Software for Remote Working Using Two-Stage Grey MCDM:
A Case Study from Vietnam. Mathematics 2022, 10, 946. [CrossRef]
36. Huang, R.Y.; Chen, J.J.; Sun, K.S. Planning gang formwork operations for building construction using simulations. Autom. Constr.
2004, 13, 765–779. [CrossRef]
37. Hanna, A.S. An Interactive Knowledge-Based Formwork Selection System for Buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA, 1989.
38. Basu, R.; Jha, K.N. An AHP based model for the selection of horizontal formwork systems in Indian residential construction. Int.
J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 2016, 5, 80–86. [CrossRef]
39. Hanna, A.S.; Sanvido, V.E. Interactive vertical formwork selection system. Concr. Int. 1990, 12, 26–32.
40. Kamarthi, S.V.; Sanvido, V.E.; Kumara, S.R.T. Neuroform—neural network system for vertical formwork selection. J. Comp. Civ.
Eng. 1992, 6, 178–199. [CrossRef]
41. Hanna, A.S.; Senouci, A.B. NEUROSLAB- neural network system for horizontal formwork selection. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 1995, 22,
785–792. [CrossRef]
42. Abdel-Razek, M.E. Formwork selection systems in building construction. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. Cairo Univ. 1999, 46, 629–644.
43. Elazouni, A.; Ali, A.; Abdel-Razek, R. Estimating the acceptability of new formwork systems using neural networks. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 33–41. [CrossRef]
44. Tam, C.M.; Tong, T.K.L.; Lau, T.C.T.; Chan, K.K. Selection of vertical formwork system by probabilistic neural networks models.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 245–254. [CrossRef]
45. Shin, Y. Formwork system selection model for tall building construction using the Adaboost algorithm. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr.
2011, 11, 523–529. [CrossRef]
46. Elbeltagi, E.; Hosny, O.; Elhakeem, A.; Abd-Elrazek, M.; Abdullah, A. Selection of slab formwork system using fuzzy logic. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 659–670. [CrossRef]
47. Krawczyńska-Piechna, A. Application of TOPSIS method in formwork selection problem. Appl. Mech. Mat. 2015, 797, 101–107.
[CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 29 of 31

48. Martinez, E.; Tommelein, I.D.; Alvear, A. Formwork system selection using choosing by advantages. In Proceedings of the
Construction Research Congress 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 31 May–2 June 2016; pp. 1700–1709. [CrossRef]
49. Teja, G.S.; Hanagodimath, A.V.; Naik, S.K. Fuzzy logic model for selection of concrete placement methods and formwork systems.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Construction, Real Estate, Infrastructure and Project Management, National
Institute of Construction Management and Research, Pune, India, 23–25 November 2018; pp. 89–98.
50. Ko, C.H.; Wang, W.; Kuo, J.D. Improving formwork engineering using the Toyota way. J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag. 2011, 1, 13–27.
[CrossRef]
51. Ko, C.H.; Kuo, J.D. Making formwork design lean. J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag. 2019, 9, 29–47. [CrossRef]
52. Terzioglu, T.; Polat, G.; Turkoglu, H. Analysis of formwork system selection criteria for building construction projects: A
comparative study. Buildings 2021, 11, 618. [CrossRef]
53. Dikshit-Ratnaparkhi, A.; Bormane, D.; Ghongade, R. A novel entropy-based weighted attribute selection in enhanced multicriteria
decision-making using fuzzy TOPSIS model for hesitant fuzzy rough environment. Complex Intell. Syst. 2021, 7, 1785–1796.
[CrossRef]
54. Li, X.; Yu, S.; Chu, J. Optimal selection of manufacturing services in cloud manufacturing: A novel hybrid MCDM approach
based on rough ANP and rough TOPSIS. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2018, 34, 4041–4056. [CrossRef]
55. Qi, J.; Hu, J.; Peng, Y.H. Integrated rough VIKOR for customer-involved design concept evaluation combining with customers’
prefrences and designers’ perceptions. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2020, 46, 101138. [CrossRef]
56. Banihashemi, S.A.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Antucheviciene, J.; Šaparauskas, J. Trading off time–cost–quality in construction project
scheduling problems with Fuzzy SWARA–TOPSIS approach. Buildings 2021, 11, 387. [CrossRef]
57. Liang, R.; Li, R.; Yan, X.; Xue, Z.; Wei, X. Evaluating and selecting the supplier in prefabricated megaprojects using extended
fuzzy TOPSIS under hesitant environment: A case study from China. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2022. [CrossRef]
58. Eghbali-Zarch, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Dehghan-Sanej, K.; Kaboli, A. Prioritizing the effective strategies for construction
and demolition waste management using fuzzy IDOCRIW and WASPAS methods. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2022, 29, 1109–1138.
[CrossRef]
59. Mohammadnazari, Z.; Mousapour Mamoudan, M.; Alipour-Vaezi, M.; Aghsami, A.; Jolai, F.; Yazdani, M. Prioritizing post-
disaster reconstruction projects using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach: A case study. Buildings 2022, 12, 136.
[CrossRef]
60. Issa, U.; Saeed, F.; Miky, Y.; Alqurashi, M.; Osman, E. Hybrid AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for selecting deep excavation support
system. Buildings 2022, 12, 295. [CrossRef]
61. Rajeshkumar, V.; Anandaraj, S.; Kavinkumar, V.; Elango, K.S. Analysis of factors influencing formwork material selection in
construction buildings. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 37, 880–885. [CrossRef]
62. Lohana, Y. Analysis of productivity criteria for selection of formwork system for construction of high rise building mega projects.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Construction, Real Estate, Infrastructure and Project Management, National
Institute of Construction Management and Research, Pune, India, 23–25 November 2018; pp. 140–154.
63. Krawczyńska-Piechna, A. An analysis of the decisive criteria in formwork selection problem. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2016, 62, 185–196.
[CrossRef]
64. Krawczyńska-Piechna, A. Comprehensive approach to efficient planning of formwork utilisation on the construction site. Procedia
Eng. 2017, 182, 366–372. [CrossRef]
65. ACI (American Concrete Institute). Guide to Formwork for Concrete; ACI 347-304; ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2004.
66. ACI (American Concrete Institute). Guide to Curing Concrete; ACI 308R-01; ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2008.
67. Abou Ibrahim, H.A.; Hamzeh, F.R. Expected lean effects of advanced high-rise formwork systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia, 29–31 July 2015; pp. 83–92. [CrossRef]
68. Jiang, L.; Leicht, R.M. Automated rule-based constructability checking: Case study of formwork. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31,
A4014004. [CrossRef]
69. Miszewska, E.; Niedostatkiewicz, M.; Wiśniewski, R. The selection of anchoring system for floating houses by means of AHP
method. Buildings 2020, 10, 75. [CrossRef]
70. Xu, C.; Wu, Y.; Dai, S. What are the critical barriers to the development of hydrogen refueling stations in China? A modified fuzzy
DEMATEL approach. Energy Policy 2020, 142, 111495. [CrossRef]
71. Wu, Y.; Xu, C.; Zhang, T. Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A
case in China. Energy 2018, 147, 1227–1239. [CrossRef]
72. Pawlak, Z. Rough sets. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. 1982, 11, 341–356. [CrossRef]
73. Akbari, S.; Khanzadi, M.; Gholamian, M.R. Building a rough sets-based prediction model for classifying large-scale construction
projects based on sustainable success index. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2018, 25, 534–558. [CrossRef]
74. Zhai, L.Y.; Khoo, L.P.; Zhong, Z.W. A rough set based QFD approach to the management of imprecise design information in
product development. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2009, 23, 222–228. [CrossRef]
75. Pavlovskis, M.; Migilinskas, D.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kutut, V. Ranking of heritage building conversion alternatives by applying
BIM and MCDM: A case of Sapieha Palace in Vilnius. Symmetry 2019, 11, 973. [CrossRef]
76. Matić, B.; Jovanović, S.; Marinković, M.; Sremac, S.; Kumar Das, D.; Stević, Ž. A Novel integrated interval rough MCDM model
for ranking and selection of asphalt production plants. Mathematics 2021, 9, 269. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 30 of 31

77. Khoo, L.-P.; Zhai, L.-Y. A prototype genetic algorithm enhanced rough set-based rule induction system. Comput. Ind. 2001, 46,
95–106. [CrossRef]
78. Zhu, G.N.; Hu, J.; Qi, J.; Gu, C.C.; Peng, J.H. An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough
number. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2015, 29, 408–418. [CrossRef]
79. Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Cantisani, G.B. Rough set theory for real estate appraisals: An application to directional district of
Naples. Buildings 2017, 7, 12. [CrossRef]
80. Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Ćirović, G.; Prentkovskis, O. The selection of wagons for the internal transport
of a logistics company: A novel approach based on rough BWM and rough SAW methods. Symmetry 2017, 9, 264. [CrossRef]
81. Chakraborty, S.; Dandge, S.S.; Agarwal, S. Non-traditional machining processes selection and evaluation: A rough multi-
attributive border approximation area comparison approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 149, 106201. [CrossRef]
82. Beiki Ashkezari, A.; Zokaee, M.; Aghsami, A.; Jolai, F.; Yazdani, M. Selecting an appropriate configuration in a construction
project using a hybrid multiple attribute decision making and failure analysis methods. Buildings 2022, 12, 643. [CrossRef]
83. Li, K.; Duan, T.; Li, Z.; Xiahou, X.; Zeng, N.; Li, Q. Development path of construction industry internet platform: An AHP–TOPSIS
integrated approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 441. [CrossRef]
84. Roy, J.; Chatterjee, K.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Kar, S. Evaluation and selection of medical tourism sites: A rough analytic hierarchy
process based multi-attributive border approximation area comparison approach. Expert Syst. 2017, 35, e12232. [CrossRef]
85. Saaty, R.W. The Analytic Hierarchy Process—What it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [CrossRef]
86. Alonso, J.A.; Lamata, T. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based
Syst. 2006, 14, 445–459. [CrossRef]
87. Kang, D.; Park, Y. Review-based measurement of customer satisfaction in mobile service: Sentiment analysis and VIKOR
approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 1041–1050. [CrossRef]
88. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Olfat, L.; Turskis, Z. Multi-Criteria inventory classification using a new method of
evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica 2015, 26, 435–451. [CrossRef]
89. Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Vasiljević, M.; Stojić, G.; Korica, S. Novel integrated multi-criteria model for supplier selection: Case
study construction company. Symmetry 2017, 9, 279. [CrossRef]
90. Turskis, Z.; Juodagalvienie, B. A novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model to assess a stairs shape for dwelling houses. J.
Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 1078–1087. [CrossRef]
91. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Olfat, L.; Khatami Firouzabadi, S.A. Designing a multi-product multi-period supply chain
network with reverse logistics and multiple objectives under uncertainty. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2017, 23, 520–548. [CrossRef]
92. Kahraman, C.; Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Cevik Onar, S.; Yazdani, M.; Oztaysi, B. Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS
method: An application to solid waste disposal site selection. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2017, 25, 1–12. [CrossRef]
93. Peng, X.; Liu, C. Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS, new similarity measure and level soft set. J.
Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017, 32, 955–968. [CrossRef]
94. Zavadskas, E.K.; Cavallaro, F.; Podvezko, V.; Ubarte, I.; Kaklauskas, A. MCDM assessment of a healthy and safe built environment
according to sustainable development principles: A practical neighborhood approach in Vilnius. Sustainability 2017, 9, 702.
[CrossRef]
95. Ecer, F. Third-party logistics (3Pls) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2018,
24, 615–634. [CrossRef]
96. Pamucar, D.; Mihajlovic, M.; Obradovic, R.; Atanaskovic, P. Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on
interval rough numbers: Hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 88, 58–80. [CrossRef]
97. Matić, B.; Jovanović, S.; Das, D.K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stević, Ž.; Sremac, S.; Marinković, M. A new hybrid MCDM model:
Sustainable supplier selection in a construction company. Symmetry 2019, 11, 353. [CrossRef]
98. Gnida, J. Formwork for high-rise construction. In Proceedings of the CTBUH Word Conference 2010, Mumbai, India,
3 February 2010.
99. Kim, T.; Lim, H.; Lee, U.K.; Cha, M.; Cho, H.; Kang, K.I. Advanced formwork method integrated with a layout planning model
for tall building construction. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 39, 1173–1183. [CrossRef]
100. Al-Tabtabai, H.M. Genetic algorithm optimal model for slab formwork cost and design. Eng. J. Univ. Qatar 2000, 13, 177–192.
101. Jha, K.N. Formwork for Concrete Structures; Tata McGraw-Hill: New Delhi, India, 2012.
102. Jha, J.; Sinha, S.K. Modern Practices in Formwork for Civil Engineering Construction Works; University Science Press: Sausalito, CA,
USA, 2014.
103. Shrivastava, A.; Chourasia, D.; Saxena, S. Planning of formwork materials. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 47, 7060–7063. [CrossRef]
104. Pawar, S.P.; Atterde, P.M. Comparative analysis of formwork in multistory building. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2014, 3, 22–24.
105. Radziejowska, A.; Sobotka, A. Comparative analysis of slab formwork of monolithic reinforced concrete buildings. Arch. Civ. Eng.
2020, 66, 127–141. [CrossRef]
106. Karke, S.M.; Kumathekar, M.B. Comparison of the use of traditional and modern formwork systems. In Civil Engineering Systems
and Sustainable Innovations; Excellent Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 2014; pp. 348–355.
107. Pawar, A.D.; Rajput, B.L.; Agarwal, A.L. Factors affecting selection of concrete structure formwork. In Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Construction, Real Estate, Infrastructure and Project Management, National Institute of Construction
Management and Research, Pune, India, 23–25 November 2018; pp. 45–52.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1084 31 of 31

108. Terzioglu, T.; Polat, G.; Turkoglu, H. Traditional vs. industrial formwork system supply chains. In Proceedings of the International
Civil Engineering and Architecture Conference (ICEARC’19), Trabzon, Turkey, 17–20 April 2019; pp. 87–97.
109. Ray, P.; Bera, D.K.; Rath, A.K. Comparison between the tunnel form system formwork and the MIVAN formwork system in a
multi-unit building project. In Recent Developments in Sustainable Infrastructure; Das, B., Barbhuiya, S., Gupta, R., Saha, P., Eds.;
Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Singapore; Volume 75, pp. 891–908. [CrossRef]
110. Dilek, Y.; Karasin, A. Examination of structures built with tunnel formwork in terms of strength and cost according to the
earthquake regulations of 2007 and 2018. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef]
111. Deshmukh, A.S.; Shalgar, M.A. Study of tunnel formwork vs. aluminum formwork. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2016, 3, 477–480.
112. Aradhye, T.D.; Apte, M.R. Study of advanced tunnel formwork system in high rise building. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2016, 5,
529–533.
113. Chaudhary, A.D. Study of tunnel formwork system and comparative analysis with conventional formwork. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.
2017, 8, 1281–1286. [CrossRef]
114. Prajapati, R.; Pitroda, J.; Bhavsar, J.J. Plastic formwork: New era for construction sector. In Proceedings of the National Conference
on: Trends and Challenges in Today’s Transforming World, Civil Engineering Department S.N.P.I.T. & R.C., Umrakh, India,
29 March 2014.
115. Ghazali, M.A.A.; Bahardin, N.F.; Zaidi, M.A. Literature mapping: Critical factors in industrialized building system plastic
formwork application. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2016, 6, 204–208.
116. Das, R.; Bhattacharya, I.; Saha, R. Comparative study between different types of formwork. Int. Res. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. 2016, 1,
173–175.
117. Sohoni, P.; Ghaffar, A.; Matsagar, V.A.; Jha, K.N. Optimization of shoring/reshoring levels in high-rise building construction.
Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. 2018, 10, 1803–1826. [CrossRef]
118. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Technol. Econ. Dev.
Econ. 2011, 17, 397–427. [CrossRef]
119. Xu, C.; Ke, Y.; Li, Y.; Chu, H.; Wu, Y. Data-driven configuration optimization of an off-grid wind/PV/hydrogen system based on
modified NSGA-II and CRITIC-TOPSIS. Energy Conv. Manag. 2020, 215, 112892. [CrossRef]
120. Hashemi, H.; Mousavi, S.M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Chalekaee, A.; Turskis, Z. A New Group Decision Model Based on Grey-
Intuitionistic Fuzzy-ELECTRE and VIKOR for Contractor Assessment Problem. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1635. [CrossRef]
121. Riaz, M.; Hashmi, M.R.; Kalsoom, H.; Pamucar, D.; Chu, Y.-M. Linear Diophantine Fuzzy Soft Rough Sets for the Selection of
Sustainable Material Handling Equipment. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1215. [CrossRef]
122. Dikmen, S.U.; Sonmez, M. An artificial neural networks model for estimation of formwork labour. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2011, 17,
340–347. [CrossRef]
123. Jarkas, A.M. Buildability factors affecting formwork labour productivity of building floors. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2010, 37, 1383–1394.
[CrossRef]
124. Lee, D.; Lim, H.; Kim, T.; Cho, H.; Kang, K. Advanced planning model of formwork layout for productivity improvement in
high-rise building construction. Autom. Constr. 2018, 85, 232–240. [CrossRef]
125. Malara, J.; Plebankiewicz, E.; Juszczyk, M. Formula for determining the construction workers productivity including environ-
mental factors. Buildings 2019, 9, 240. [CrossRef]
126. Zhang, J.; Yang, D.; Li, Q.; Lev, B.; Ma, Y. Research on Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on the Rough DEMATEL and FVIKOR
Methods. Sustainability 2021, 13, 88. [CrossRef]
127. Shojaei, P.; Bolvardizadeh, A. Rough MCDM model for green supplier selection in Iran: A case of university construction project.
Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020, 10, 437–452. [CrossRef]