Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Front. Eng    2019, Vol. 6 Issue (2) : 275-298    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0022-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Key uncertainty events impacting on the completion time of highway construction projects
Alireza MOGHAYEDI(), Abimbola WINDAPO
Department of Construction Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7701, South Africa
 Download: PDF(1580 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper examines the uncertainty events encountered in the process of constructing highways, and evaluates their impact on construction time, on highway projects in South Africa. The rationale for this examination stems from the view held by scholars that the construction of highways is a complex process, taking place in changing environments and often beset by uncertainties; and that there is a lack of appropriate evaluation of these uncertainty events occurring during the construction process. The research made use of a review of extant literature in the area of uncertainty management, and modeling in infrastructure projects, to guide the direction of the study. The inquiry process consisted of brainstorming by highway experts and interviewing them to identify the uncertainty factors that impact construction time.

An uncertainty matrix for South African highway projects was developed, using a quantitative model and descriptive statistics. It emerged from the study that the uncertainty events affecting the construction time of highway projects are distributed across economic, environmental, financial, legal, political, social and technical factors. Also, it was found that each factor might account for several uncertainty events which impact on construction time differently, through a combination of the uncertainty events of the individual construction activities.

Based on the obtained data, an Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) has been developed, as a simple, reliable and accurate advanced machine learning technique to assess the impact of uncertainty events on the completion time of highway construction projects. To validate the ANFIS model, the Stepwise Regression (SR) models have been designed and their results are compared with the results of the ANFIS. Based on the predicted impact size of uncertainty events on the time of highway projects, it can be concluded that construction time on South African highway projects is significantly related to the social and technical uncertainties factors.

Keywords ANFIS, construction time      impact assessment, highway project      South Africa      uncertainty     
Corresponding Author(s): Alireza MOGHAYEDI   
Online First Date: 26 April 2019    Issue Date: 17 May 2019
 Cite this article:   
Alireza MOGHAYEDI,Abimbola WINDAPO. Key uncertainty events impacting on the completion time of highway construction projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 275-298.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-019-0022-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2019/V6/I2/275
Event Factor Reference* Total of citation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Weather Environment 16
Availability of materials Technical 15
Inaccurate management or supervision Technical 14
Availability of skilled labor Technical 14
Health and safety Technical 13
Materials delivery Technical 12
Construction methods Technical 12
Availability of equipment Technical 12
Cash flow difficulties (Contractor finance) Financial 12
Design, drawings, specifications and samples Technical 11
Incompetent contractor/ subcontractor Technical 10
Low productivity level work Technical 10
Payment delay Financial 10
Planning and scheduling of project by contractor Technical 10
Difficulty of schedule Technical 9
Lack of capital by owner Financial 9
Change order (Change in the scope of the project) Technical 9
Legal/industrial disputes between various parties in the construction project Legal 8
Communication/ coordination between construction parties Technical 8
Fluctuation of prices of materials and/or equipment Economical 8
Tab.1  Uncertainty events most frequently mentioned in the literature review (top 20)
Uncertainty factor Uncertainty event Uncertainty factor Uncertainty event
Economical Fluctuation of prices of materials and/or equipment Technical General Size of contract
Monopoly of material and/or equipment suppliers Health and Safety
Saturated market Change order (change in the scope of the project)
Fluctuation in foreign exchange rate Difficulty of schedule
Environmental Weather Inadequate planning and scheduling
Natural disasters Payment delay
Remote location cost Contractual claim
Terrain (or topographical site) Improper construction methods
Financial Tax and/or legal fees Specification change
Cash flow difficulties Poor communication/coordination between construction parties
Poor financial control Latent ground conditions
Lack of capital Labor Inadequate labor productivity
High tender price Absenteeism of labor
High cost of materials and/or equipment Shortage of skilled workers
High cost of labor Poor quality of workmanship
Legal Right of way acquisition Material Unreliable supplier of material
Deficient documentation Delay in material supply
Difficulties in importing equipment and materials Bad quality of materials
Changes in government regulations and laws Shortage of materials
Unclear arbitration process for legal disputes between construction parties Equipment Low efficiency of equipment
Changing of bankers’ policy for loans Slow mobilization of equipment
Ineffective delay penalties Late delivery of equipment
Type of contract Availability of equipment
Problem in dispute settlement due to law Technology Obsolete technology
Contract failure New technology adoption
Political Political situation Consultant Lack of experience in design and supervision
Encroachment problems Inaccurate investigation of the construction site
Human-made disaster Frequent design changes
Social Cultural heritage issue Incomplete drawings, specifications
Personal conflicts among labor Mistakes in design and/or specifications
Social and cultural impacts Inaccurate time and cost estimation
Rehabilitation of affected people Inadequate monitoring and supervision
Disease Delay in decisions making
Security Lack of technical staff
Corruption Contractor Lack of experience in the line of work
Incorrect planning and scheduling
Frequent change of subcontractors
Poor quality of project management
Re-work due to contractor errors
Lack of technical staff
Incompetent contractor/subcontractor
Tab.2  Uncertainty events on Highway Construction Projects distributed according to causative factors
Fig.1  Impact size matrix
Linguistic value Fuzzy value Fuzzy graphical diagram
Probability of occurrence Rare (-0.1, 0.1, 0.3)
Unlikely (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
Possible (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
Likely (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
Almost certain (0.7, 0.9, 1.1)
Severity of event Insignificant (-1, 1, 3)
Minor (1, 3, 5)
Moderate (3, 5, 7)
Major (5, 7, 9)
Catastrophic (7, 9, 11)
Impact size Minimal (0, 1, 2)
Low (1, 2, 3)
Moderate (2, 3, 4)
High (3, 4, 5)
Extreme (4, 5, 6)
Tab.3  Linguistic and fuzzy values of probability, severity, and impact size
Probability of occurrence Severity of event Impact size
Linguistic value Numerical value Linguistic code Numerical value Linguistic code Numerical value
Rare 0.1 Insignificant 1 Minimal 1
Unlikely 0.3 Minor 3 Low 2
Possible 0.5 Moderate 5 Moderate 3
Likely 0.7 Major 7 High 4
Almost certain 0.9 Catastrophic 9 Extreme 5
Tab.4  Conversion value of linguistic to numerical values
Fig.2  Proposed Takagi and Sugeno ANFIS structure
Fig.3  Proposed ANFIS structure model
Fig.4  A 3D surface diagram of rules in the FIS
Model Membership Function RMSE NRMSE MAPE MSE R-value
1 Triangular 1.26E-07 6.28E-08 2.90E-08 1.58E-14 0.999999999999999
2 Trapezoidal 1.30E-07 6.49E-08 3.08E-08 1.68E-14 0.999999999999999
3 Bell-shaped 1.47E-07 7.36E-08 3.60E-08 2.17E-14 0.999999999999998
4 Gaussian combination 1.49E-07 7.45E-08 3.68E-08 2.22E-14 0.999999999999998
5 Gaussian 1.28E-07 6.41E-08 2.98E-08 1.65E-14 0.999999999999999
6 P-shaped 1.47E-07 7.36E-08 3.77E-08 2.17E-14 0.999999999999998
7 Difference sigmoidal 1.34E-07 6.68E-08 3.17E-08 1.78E-14 0.999999999999998
8 Product sigmoidal 1.33E-07 6.64E-08 3.22E-08 1.77E-14 0.999999999999999
Tab.5  Performance evaluation of ANFIS membership functions
Code Event RMSE MAPE R-value
EC1 Fluctuation of prices of materials and/or equipment 8.74E-07 2.07E-07 0.999999999999936
EC2 Monopoly of material and/or equipment suppliers 7.76E-07 1.88E-07 0.999999999999947
EC3 Saturated market 6.00E-07 2.15E-07 0.999999999999931
EC4 Fluctuation in foreign exchange rate 7.22E-07 2.38E-07 0.999999999999924
EN1 Weather 9.20E-07 2.27E-07 0.999999999999938
EN2 Natural disasters (earthquake, floods, hurricane, etc.) 9.73E-07 1.83E-07 0.999999999999941
EN3 Remote location cost 8.36E-07 1.80E-07 0.999999999999948
EN4 Terrain or topography 7.78E-07 1.62E-07 0.999999999999938
FI1 Tax and/or legal fees 4.03E-07 2.07E-07 0.999999999999952
FI2 Cash flow difficulties 1.02E-06 2.26E-07 0.999999999999911
FI3 Poor financial control 7.97E-07 2.00E-07 0.999999999999925
FI4 Lack of capital 8.61E-07 2.14E-07 0.999999999999925
FI5 High tender price (higher than estimate) 6.24E-07 1.63E-07 0.999999999999927
FI6 High cost of materials and/or equipment 7.64E-07 1.98E-07 0.999999999999913
FI7 High cost of labor 6.97E-07 1.63E-07 0.999999999999906
LE1 Right of way acquisition (land acquisition) 9.68E-07 2.04E-07 0.999999999999930
LE10 Contract failure- new contract establishment cost 9.86E-07 2.38E-07 0.999999999999902
LE2 Deficient documentation 1.12E-06 2.84E-07 0.999999999999844
LE3 Difficulties in importing equipment and materials 4.21E-07 1.74E-07 0.999999999999965
LE4 Changes in government regulations and laws 8.13E-07 2.57E-07 0.999999999999928
LE5 Unclear arbitration process for legal disputes between construction parties 7.19E-07 1.83E-07 0.999999999999941
LE6 Changing of bankers’ policy for loans 7.37E-07 2.62E-07 0.999999999999898
LE7 Ineffective delay penalties 8.45E-07 1.99E-07 0.999999999999923
LE8 Type of contract 7.83E-07 2.22E-07 0.999999999999926
LE9 Problem in dispute settlement due to law 5.08E-07 1.26E-07 0.999999999999982
PL1 Political situation 7.76E-07 1.73E-07 0.999999999999956
PL2 Encroachment problems 9.40E-07 2.36E-07 0.999999999999911
PL3 Human-made disaster (war, protest, strike, etc.) 1.10E-06 1.70E-07 0.999999999999945
SO1 Cultural heritage issue 8.90E-07 1.86E-07 0.999999999999931
SO2 Personal conflicts among labor 5.74E-07 1.58E-07 0.999999999999956
SO3 Social and cultural impacts 8.96E-07 1.80E-07 0.999999999999945
SO4 Rehabilitation of affected people 9.77E-07 1.43E-07 0.999999999999956
SO5 Disease (HIV, Ebola) 9.67E-07 1.85E-07 0.999999999999948
SO6 Security 8.05E-07 1.49E-07 0.999999999999952
SO7 Corruption 6.32E-07 1.48E-07 0.999999999999971
TCR1 Lack of experience in the line of work 7.00E-07 2.42E-07 0.999999999999932
TCR2 Incorrect planning and scheduling by contractor 9.82E-07 2.03E-07 0.999999999999907
TCR3 Frequent change of subcontractors 1.02E-06 2.51E-07 0.999999999999901
TCR4 Poor quality of project management 8.83E-07 2.04E-07 0.999999999999945
TCR5 Re-work due to contractor errors 8.86E-07 1.73E-07 0.999999999999947
TCR6 Lack of technical staff 1.01E-06 2.53E-07 0.999999999999907
TCR7 Incompetent contractor/subcontractor 9.08E-07 2.08E-07 0.999999999999906
TCS1 Lack of experience in design and supervision 8.32E-07 2.88E-07 0.999999999999903
TCS2 Inaccurate investigation of the construction site 8.78E-07 2.00E-07 0.999999999999934
TCS3 Frequent design changes 9.08E-07 1.82E-07 0.999999999999939
TCS4 Incomplete drawings, specifications 1.03E-06 2.04E-07 0.999999999999924
TCS5 Mistakes in design and/or specifications 8.84E-07 2.38E-07 0.999999999999925
TCS6 Inaccurate time and cost estimation 8.71E-07 1.24E-07 0.999999999999967
TCS7 Inadequate monitoring and supervision 8.63E-07 2.06E-07 0.999999999999912
TCS8 Delay in decision-making 1.03E-06 2.19E-07 0.999999999999921
TCS9 Lack of technical staff 6.91E-07 1.41E-07 0.999999999999947
TE1 Low efficiency of equipment 1.11E-06 2.30E-07 0.999999999999888
TE2 Slow mobilization of equipment 6.83E-07 2.40E-07 0.999999999999891
TE3 Late delivery of equipment 9.90E-07 2.70E-07 0.999999999999871
TE4 Availability of equipment 6.46E-07 2.01E-07 0.999999999999948
TG1 Size of contract 5.95E-07 2.11E-07 0.999999999999888
TG10 Poor communication/coordination between construction parties 1.20E-06 2.32E-07 0.999999999999843
TG11 Latent ground conditions 7.64E-07 9.70E-08 0.999999999999976
TG2 Health and Safety 1.12E-06 2.14E-07 0.999999999999898
TG3 Change order (change in the scope of the project) 1.20E-06 2.51E-07 0.999999999999896
TG4 Difficulty of schedule 1.05E-06 1.97E-07 0.999999999999941
TG5 Inadequate planning and scheduling 7.57E-07 1.23E-07 0.999999999999974
TG6 Payment delay 1.22E-06 2.68E-07 0.999999999999887
TG7 Contractual claim 8.35E-07 2.40E-07 0.999999999999911
TG8 Improper construction methods 9.38E-07 2.25E-07 0.999999999999915
TG9 Specification change 1.23E-06 2.16E-07 0.999999999999915
TL1 Inadequate labor productivity 1.14E-06 2.51E-07 0.999999999999910
TL2 Absenteeism of labor 7.88E-07 1.98E-07 0.999999999999931
TL3 Shortage of skilled workers 7.51E-07 1.74E-07 0.999999999999959
TL4 Poor quality of workmanship 7.97E-07 1.89E-07 0.999999999999938
TM1 Unreliable supplier of material 8.41E-07 2.20E-07 0.999999999999939
TM2 Delay in material supply 8.38E-07 1.74E-07 0.999999999999951
TM3 Bad quality of materials 1.01E-06 1.96E-07 0.999999999999929
TM4 Shortage of materials 1.04E-06 2.11E-07 0.999999999999922
TT1 Obsolete technology 9.08E-07 1.95E-07 0.999999999999946
TT2 New technology adoption 1.01E-06 1.79E-07 0.999999999999927
Tab.6  Performance evaluation of ANFIS models
Fig.5  Rules viewer display for Event EC1
Code Event Probability of occurrence Severity of event Impact size
TG11 Latent ground conditions 0.84375 8.3125 4.95
TCS6 Inaccurate time and cost estimation 0.79375 8.3125 4.85
TG5 Inadequate planning and scheduling 0.8125 7.6875 4.75
PL3 Human-made disaster (war, protest, Strike, etc.) 0.8125 7.4375 4.69
SO4 Rehabilitation of affected people 0.78125 7.8125 4.68
TG9 Specification change 0.73125 6.4375 4.18
TG4 Difficulty of schedule 0.55625 7.75 4.15
SO5 Disease (HIV, Ebola) 0.70625 6.8125 4.06
TCR4 Poor quality of project management 0.66875 5.5 3.95
TCS4 Incomplete Drawings, specifications 0.675 5.1875 3.92
PL1 Political situation 0.64375 5.6875 3.88
SO3 Social and cultural impacts 0.76875 4.375 3.88
TL1 Inadequate labor productivity 0.725 4.625 3.88
TCR5 Rework due to contractor errors 0.64375 5.5625 3.86
EN1 Weather 0.6625 5 3.81
LE9 Problem in dispute settlement due to law 0.625 5.6875 3.81
EN2 Natural disasters (earthquake, floods, hurricane, etc.) 0.4125 7.9375 3.8
TT1 Obsolete technology 0.58125 6.1875 3.8
SO7 Corruption 0.79375 3.8125 3.79
SO6 Security 0.76875 4.0625 3.78
TCS3 Frequent design changes 0.60625 5.8125 3.77
TM2 Delay in material supply 0.56875 6.1875 3.77
TM3 Bad quality of materials 0.61875 5.5 3.74
TCS8 Delay in decisions making 0.75 4.0625 3.73
TG3 Change order (change in the scope of the project) 0.74375 4.0625 3.71
EC1 Fluctuation of prices of materials and/or equipment 0.66875 4.5625 3.7
TL3 Shortage of skilled workers 0.61875 5.3125 3.69
TT2 New technology adoption 0.5375 6.1875 3.69
EN3 Remote location cost 0.75 3.9375 3.68
TM4 Shortage of materials 0.54375 6.0625 3.66
LE1 Right of way acquisition (Land acquisition) 0.625 5.0625 3.64
TG6 Payments delay 0.6 5.125 3.54
SO1 Cultural heritage issue 0.64375 4.25 3.52
TG2 Health and Safety 0.75625 3.375 3.47
TE1 Low efficiency of equipment 0.6 4.5625 3.46
TCS2 Inaccurate investigation of the construction site 0.5875 4.5 3.41
FI2 Cash flow difficulties 0.58125 4.875 3.4
TCR6 Lack of technical staff 0.6 4.0625 3.37
TM1 Unreliable supplier of material 0.56875 4.75 3.35
EC2 Monopoly of material and/or equipment suppliers 0.7 3.5625 3.32
TL4 Poor quality of workmanship 0.5625 4.375 3.32
TCR2 Incorrect planning and scheduling by contractor 0.55625 4.25 3.29
TCR3 Frequent change of subcontractors 0.54375 4.375 3.26
TG8 Improper construction methods 0.5375 4.4375 3.24
PL2 Encroachment problems 0.525 4.5 3.2
FI4 Lack of capital 0.4 5.625 3.19
TCS9 Lack of technical staff 0.56875 3.5 3.17
TL2 Absenteeism of labor 0.54375 3.4375 3.14
TG10 Poor communication/coordination between construction parties 0.6 3.3125 3.13
FI3 Poor financial control 0.56875 3.3125 3.11
TCS5 Mistakes in design and/or specifications 0.46875 5.25 3.11
TCR7 Incompetent contractor/subcontractor 0.46875 4.125 3.06
LE4 Changes in government regulations and laws 0.4 5.125 3.04
LE7 Ineffective delay penalties 0.4375 5.0625 3.02
LE10 Contract failure- new contract establishment cost 0.4625 4.9375 3.01
LE5 Unclear arbitration process for legal disputes between construction parties 0.4375 4.4375 3
TCS7 Inadequate monitoring and supervision 0.44375 4.1875 2.99
EN4 Terrain or topography 0.75625 2.4375 2.97
TE4 Availability of equipment 0.4625 3.5625 2.97
LE2 Deficient documentation 0.44375 3.8125 2.94
LE8 Type of contract 0.4125 4.3125 2.93
TG7 Contractual claim 0.375 4.25 2.82
SO2 Personal conflicts among labor 0.55625 2.625 2.81
TCR1 Lack of experience in the line of work 0.3625 4.3125 2.81
TE3 Late delivery of equipment 0.425 3.5 2.79
TCS1 Lack of experience in design and supervision 0.38125 3.75 2.69
FI6 High cost of materials and/or equipment 0.55625 2.375 2.68
FI5 High Tender Price (higher than estimate) 0.55 2.0625 2.53
EC4 fluctuation in foreign exchange rate 0.65625 2 2.48
LE3 Difficulties in importing equipment and materials 0.19375 5 2.47
FI7 High cost of labor 0.56875 1.8125 2.4
LE6 Changing of bankers’ policy for loans 0.3125 3.6875 2.4
EC3 Saturated market 0.4125 2.6875 2.39
TE2 Slow mobilization of equipment 0.2625 3.125 1.87
FI1 Tax and/or legal fees 0.3625 1.875 1.7
TG1 Size of contract 0.24375 2.8125 1.64
Tab.7  Predicted impact size of ANFIS models
Group Impact size Events
Extreme I≥4 TG11, TCS6, TG5, PL3, SO4, TG9, TG4, SO5
High 3≤I<4 TCR4, TCS4, PL1, SO3, TL1, TCR5, EN1, LE9, EN2, TT1, SO7, SO6, TCS3, TM2, TM3, TCS8, TG3, EC1, TL3, TT2, EN3, TM4, LE1, TG6, SO1, TG2, TE1, TCS2, FI2, TCR6, TM1, EC2, TL4, TCR2, TCR3, TG8, PL2, FI4, TCS9, TL2, TG10, FI3, TCS5, TCR7, LE4, LE7, LE10, LE5
Moderate 2≤I<3 TCS7, EN4, TE4, LE2, LE8, TG7, SO2, TCR1, TE3, TCS1, FI6, FI5, EC4, LE3, FI7, LE6, EC3
Low 1≤I<2 TG1, FI1, TE2
Minimal 1<I -
Tab.8  Uncertainty events clusters
Probability Severity Impact
Probability 1
Severity 0.001411 1
Impact 0.727923 0.885061 1
Tab.9  Correlation matrix among input and output variables
Event Probability of occurrence Severity of event Model Impact size RMSE MAPE R-value
TG11 0.84375 8.3125 I= 1.6079p+ 0.068282s+ 3.0132 4.94 0.19 0.0278 0.441
TCS6 0.79375 8.3125 I= 1.9967p+ 0.21694s+ 1.3931 4.78 0.249 0.0481 0.671
TG5 0.675 7.6875 I= 2.3235p+ 0.25137s+ 0.89851 4.72 0.261 0.0533 0.694
SO4 0.75625 7.8125 I= 2.6448p+ 0.26225+ 0.5412 4.66 0.262 0.0537 0.725
PL3 0.70625 7.4375 I= 2.7748p+ 0.21478s+ 0.80427 4.66 0.255 0.0518 0.738
SO5 0.7 6.8125 I= 2.9907p+ 0.29509s+ 0.064987 4.19 0.245 0.0521 0.84
TG9 0.55625 6.4375 I= 2.4275p+ 0.22789s+ 0.88358 4.16 0.252 0.0556 0.705
TG4 0.4 7.75 I= 2.1685p+ 0.26421s+ 0.97812 4.00 0.248 0.0557 0.703
TCR5 0.64375 5.5625 I= 2.0528p+ 0.21823s+ 1.2336 3.84 0.237 0.0553 0.613
EN2 0.65625 7.9375 I= 1.8779p+ 0.20912s+ 1.4539 3.81 0.251 0.0621 0.626
SO3 0.55 4.375 I= 2.7031p+ 0.24679s+ 0.68305 3.81 0.24 0.0571 0.658
TT1 0.66875 6.1875 I= 2.481p+ 0.29985s+ 0.52521 3.78 0.259 0.0664 0.739
LE9 0.3625 5.6875 I= 2.0753p+ 0.21005s+ 1.2381 3.78 0.253 0.0628 0.661
TCR4 0.8125 5.5 I= 2.3438p+ 0.28125s+ 0.75 3.78 0.253 0.0632 0.661
TL1 0.725 4.625 I= 2.0923p+ 0.25482s+ 0.98332 3.75 0.286 0.0729 0.703
TM2 0.56875 6.1875 I= 2.6345p+ 0.20179s+ 0.92489 3.75 0.257 0.066 0.68
TCS4 0.74375 5.1875 I= 2.2434p+ 0.25897s+ 0.80167 3.75 0.253 0.0635 0.691
PL1 0.60625 5.6875 I= 2.1309p+ 0.25781s+ 0.92834 3.72 0.251 0.0618 0.718
TCS3 0.56875 5.8125 I= 3.1541p+ 0.27735s+ 0.24167 3.72 0.259 0.0669 0.7
TM3 0.78125 5.5 I= 2.7229p+ 0.29398s+ 0.4 3.72 0.248 0.062 0.789
SO6 0.4125 4.0625 I= 1.8938p+ 0.31086s+ 0.74612 3.69 0.258 0.0651 0.72
TT2 0.5875 6.1875 I= 3.0904p+ 0.27333s+ 0.1924 3.69 0.236 0.0564 0.766
SO7 0.75 3.8125 I= 2.832p+ 0.26974s+ 0.50137 3.69 0.256 0.0643 0.724
EN3 0.79375 3.9375 I= 3.5439p+ 0.37035s−0.50399 3.69 0.245 0.0619 0.746
TL3 0.44375 5.3125 I= 2.782p+ 0.29132s+ 0.37744 3.66 0.243 0.0533 0.815
TM4 0.46875 6.0625 I= 2.9284p+ 0.35082s+ 0.053043 3.66 0.254 0.065 0.741
TG3 0.58125 4.0625 I= 2.8625p+ 0.30386s+ 0.27494 3.66 0.283 0.0689 0.793
TCS8 0.3625 4.0625 I= 2.9728p+ 0.27905s+ 0.2915 3.66 0.282 0.0724 0.75
EN1 0.3125 5 I= 2.7156p+ 0.29685s+ 0.42496 3.66 0.286 0.074 0.742
LE1 0.75625 5.0625 I= 3.438p+ 0.36616s−0.3456 3.63 0.25 0.0648 0.758
TG6 0.61875 5.125 I= 3.4577p+ 0.34975s−0.38905 3.59 0.237 0.0551 0.832
TG2 0.4625 3.375 I= 3.0203p+ 0.32275s−0.08614 3.41 0.265 0.0621 0.826
EC1 0.8125 4.5625 I= 2.6591p+ 0.29949s+ 0.3694 3.41 0.249 0.0525 0.846
FI2 0.4 4.875 I= 3.4557p+ 0.3706s−0.42467 3.38 0.249 0.0667 0.761
SO1 0.44375 4.25 I= 3.3733p+ 0.31378s−0.05009 3.37 0.243 0.0592 0.82
TCS2 0.58125 4.5 I= 3.2586p+ 0.34138s−0.15345 3.34 0.27 0.0743 0.771
EC2 0.66875 3.5625 I= 3.1463p+ 0.36829s−0.22439 3.34 0.213 0.0576 0.882
TE1 0.56875 4.5625 I= 3.8776p+ 0.35682s−0.58779 3.34 0.268 0.0696 0.814
TM1 0.64375 4.75 I= 2.5957p+ 0.25258s+ 0.69772 3.31 0.224 0.0572 0.867
TCR6 0.55625 4.0625 I= 2.7804p+ 0.26577s+ 0.4889 3.28 0.262 0.0776 0.693
TCS5 0.54375 5.25 I= 2.6541p+ 0.22389s+ 0.75535 3.19 0.256 0.075 0.724
PL2 0.5375 4.5 I= 2.6359p+ 0.20652s+ 0.94022 3.16 0.257 0.0764 0.693
FI4 0.6 5.625 I= 3.0851p+ 0.31383s+ 0.047872 3.16 0.256 0.076 0.695
TL4 0.6 4.375 I= 2.178p+ 0.21259s+ 1.0412 3.16 0.261 0.0723 0.761
TCR2 0.56875 4.25 I= 2.0875p+ 0.28672s+ 0.73556 3.16 0.254 0.0729 0.558
TCR3 0.4125 4.375 I= 2.2382p+ 0.2279s+ 0.96459 3.13 0.265 0.074 0.728
LE10 0.375 4.9375 I= 3.6134p+ 0.48111s−0.81155 3.13 0.259 0.0786 0.646
EN4 0.625 2.4375 I= 2.7811p+ 0.32932s+ 0.13755 3.09 0.241 0.0646 0.868
TG8 0.61875 4.4375 I= 0.10753p+ 0.15403s+ 2.3997 3.09 0.27 0.0787 0.802
TCS9 0.56875 3.5 I= 2.4404p+ 0.24334s+ 0.70037 3.00 0.195 0.0478 0.451
LE7 0.75 5.0625 I= 1.1169p+ 0.33612s+ 1.2164 3.00 0.236 0.0669 0.731
TG10 0.6 3.3125 I= 1.487p+ 0.25588s+ 1.2494 3.00 0.244 0.0638 0.784
TL2 0.54375 3.4375 I= 1.7879p+ 0.26378s+ 1.0113 2.94 0.272 0.0828 0.634
TCR7 0.4125 4.125 I= 2.3684p+ 0.15526s+ 1.2079 2.94 0.276 0.0874 0.624
LE5 0.4375 4.4375 I= 3.0647p+ 0.25393s+ 0.40071 2.93 0.232 0.0702 0.61
LE4 0.5625 5.125 I= 2.2727p+ 0.18182s+ 1.1364 2.93 0.264 0.0752 0.803
TCS7 0.6 4.1875 I= 1.2956p+ 0.30142s+ 1.1396 2.91 0.25 0.0824 0.615
FI3 0.5375 3.3125 I= 1.9336p+ 0.20369s+ 1.1677 2.87 0.28 0.0847 0.587
LE8 0.54375 4.3125 I= 1.8809p+ 0.24922s+ 1.0235 2.84 0.25 0.0851 0.57
TE4 0.4625 3.5625 I= 2.8513p+ 0.26021s+ 0.52394 2.78 0.285 0.0982 0.569
LE2 0.46875 3.8125 I= 2.6163p+ 0.30814s+ 0.4593 2.78 0.256 0.0858 0.8
TG7 0.55625 4.25 I= 2.9545p+ 0.33636s+ 0.25455 2.75 0.28 0.0999 0.773
TE3 0.425 3.5 I= 0.47194p+ 0.3463s+ 1.5159 2.69 0.293 0.0997 0.772
SO2 0.55625 2.625 I= 3.016p+ 0.29228s+ 0.30247 2.69 0.272 0.0861 0.688
TCR1 0.4375 4.3125 I= 2.9965p+ 0.33535s+ 0.19377 2.66 0.327 0.1214 0.724
TCS1 0.38125 3.75 I= 2.384p+ 0.4346s+ 0.16002 2.59 0.296 0.1009 0.738
EC4 0.64375 2 I= 0.84299p+ 0.36892s+ 1.2174 2.59 0.279 0.1043 0.807
FI6 0.73125 2.375 I= 1.4841p+ 0.37124s+ 0.79306 2.56 0.253 0.0751 0.764
FI5 0.76875 2.0625 I= 3.9764p+ 0.36809s−0.28745 2.37 0.231 0.0795 0.794
LE6 0.625 3.6875 I= 0.8352p+ 0.37052s+ 1.1659 2.31 0.247 0.0697 0.837
FI7 0.76875 1.8125 I= 3.465p+ 0.40544s−0.23769 2.31 0.206 0.0626 0.821
EC3 0.6625 2.6875 I= 4.4937p+ 0.24051s+ 0.14557 2.28 0.277 0.0952 0.821
LE3 0.19375 5 I= 4.3125p+ 0.44375s−0.6125 2.22 0.258 0.1179 0.797
TE2 0.2625 3.125 I= 4.4815p+ 0.46975s−0.72407 1.91 0.159 0.0635 0.942
FI1 0.525 1.875 I= 3.8354p+ 0.33282s−0.15217 1.78 0.167 0.0706 0.954
TG1 0.24375 2.8125 I= 1.6079p+ 0.068282s+ 3.0132 1.72 0.212 0.1162 0.875
Tab.10  Evaluation of SR models predicted impact size and performance
Method Crisp data Fuzzy value Linearity data Nonlinearity data Learning and modeling of human knowledge Simple computing
AHP
ANFIS hybrid
ANN
Bayesian network
FAHP
Fault tree analysis
Probability analysis
Tab.11  Comparison of various uncertainty assessment methods
Please specify the probability of occurrence and severity of each economical uncertainty event during the construction of highway projects
Uncertainty Events Probability of Occurrence Severity of Event
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Fluctuation of prices of materials and/or equipment ? ?
Monopoly of material and/or equipment suppliers ? ?
Saturated market ? ?
Fluctuation in foreign exchange rate ? ?
Please specify the probability of occurrence and severity of each environmental uncertainty event during the construction of highway projects
Uncertainty Events Probability of Occurrence Severity of Event
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Weather ? ?
Natural disasters ? ?
Remote location cost ? ?
Terrain (or topographical site) ? ?
Please specify the probability of occurrence and severity of each financial uncertainty event during the construction of highway projects
Uncertainty Events Probability of Occurrence Severity of Event
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Tax and/or legal fees ? ?
Cash flow difficulties ? ?
Poor financial control ? ?
Lack of capital ? ?
High tender price ? ?
High cost of materials and/or equipment ? ?
High cost of labor ? ?
Please specify the probability of occurrence and severity of each legal uncertainty event during the construction of highway projects
Uncertainty Events Probability of Occurrence Severity of Event
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Right of way acquisition ? ?
Deficient documentation ? ?
Difficulties in importing equipment and materials ? ?
Changes in government regulations and laws ? ?
Unclear arbitration process for legal disputes between construction parties ? ?
Changing of bankers’ policy for loans ? ?
Ineffective delay penalties ? ?
Type of contract ? ?
Problem in dispute settlement due to law ? ?
Contract failure ? ?
Please specify the probability of occurrence and severity of each political uncertainty event during the construction of highway projects
Uncertainty Events Probability of Occurrence Severity of Event
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Political situation ? ?
Encroachment problems ? ?
Human-made disaster ? ?
Please specify the probability of occurrence and severity of each social uncertainty event during the construction of highway projects
Uncertainty Events Probability of Occurrence Severity of Event
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Cultural heritage issue ? ?
Personal conflicts among labor ? ?
Social and cultural impacts ? ?
Rehabilitation of affected people ? ?
Disease ? ?
Security ? ?
Corruption ? ?
Please specify the probability of occurrence and severity of each technical uncertainty event during the construction of highway projects
Uncertainty Events Probability of Occurrence Severity of Event
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Almost certain Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
General
Size of contract ? ?
Health and Safety ? ?
Change order (change in the scope of the project) ? ?
Difficulty of schedule ? ?
Inadequate planning and scheduling ? ?
Payment delay ? ?
Contractual claim ? ?
Improper construction methods ? ?
Specification change ? ?
Poor communication/coordination between construction parties ? ?
Latent ground conditions ? ?
Labor
Inadequate labor productivity ? ?
Absenteeism of labor ? ?
Shortage of skilled workers ? ?
Poor quality of workmanship ? ?
Material
Unreliable supplier of material ? ?
Delay in material supply ? ?
Bad quality of materials ? ?
Shortage of materials ? ?
Equipment
Low efficiency of equipment ? ?
Slow mobilization of equipment ? ?
Late delivery of equipment ? ?
Availability of equipment ? ?
Technology
Obsolete technology ? ?
New technology adoption ? ?
Consultant
Lack of experience in design and supervision ? ?
Inaccurate investigation of the construction site ? ?
Frequent design changes ? ?
Incomplete drawings, specifications ? ?
Mistakes in design and/or specifications ? ?
Inaccurate time and cost estimation ? ?
Inadequate monitoring and supervision ? ?
Delay in decisions making ? ?
Lack of technical staff ? ?
Contractor
Lack of experience in the line of work ? ?
Incorrect planning and scheduling ? ?
Frequent change of subcontractors ? ?
Poor quality of project management ? ?
Re-work due to contractor errors ? ?
Lack of technical staff ? ?
Incompetent contractor/subcontractor ? ?
  
1 AAdam, P E B Josephson, G Lindahl (2017). Aggregation of factors causing cost overruns and time delays in large public construction projects: Trends and implications. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 24(3): 393–406
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2015-0135
2 MAhmadi, K Behzadian, AArdeshir, ZKapelan (2017). Comprehensive risk management using fuzzy FMEA and MCDA techniques in highway construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(2): 300–310
https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1068847
3 S DAnderson, K R Molenaar, C J Schexnayder (2007). Guidance for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects During Planning, Programming, and Preconstruction. Transportation Research Board
4 RAntunes, V Gonzalez (2015). A production model for construction: A theoretical framework. Buildings, 5(1): 209–228
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5010209
5 M SAsgari, A Abbasi, MAlimohamadlou (2016). Comparison of ANFIS and FAHP-FGP methods for supplier selection. Kybernetes, 45(3): 474–489
https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2014-0195
6 S AAssaf, S Al-Hejji (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4): 349–357
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010
7 R FAziz, A A Abdel-Hakam (2016). Exploring delay causes of road construction projects in Egypt. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55(2): 1515–1539
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.03.006
8 DBaloi, A D Price (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost performance. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4): 261–269
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00017-0
9 NBanaitiene, A Banaitis (2012). Risk management in construction projects. In: Banaitiene N, ed. Risk Management-Current Issues and Challenges. InTech
10 KBarker, Y Y Haimes (2009). Assessing uncertainty in extreme events: Applications to risk-based decision making in interdependent infrastructure sectors. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(4): 819–829
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.09.008
11 N GBunni (2003). Risk and Insurance in Construction. London: Routledge
12 MBuragohain, C Mahanta (2008). A novel approach for ANFIS modelling based on full factorial design. Applied Soft Computing, 8(1): 609–625
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2007.03.010
13 A PChan, D C Ho, C Tam (2001). Design and build project success factors: Multivariate analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(2): 93–100
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:2(93)
14 CChapman (2006). Key points of contention in framing assumptions for risk and uncertainty management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4): 303–313
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.01.006
15 T TChen, C H Wang (2017). Fall risk assessment of bridge construction using Bayesian network transferring from fault tree analysis. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(2): 273–282
https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1068841
16 L HChen, H W Lu (2001). An approximate approach for ranking fuzzy numbers based on left and right dominance. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 41(12): 1589–1602
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-1221(01)00124-9
17 G DCreedy, M Skitmore, J KWong (2010). Evaluation of risk factors leading to cost overrun in delivery of highway construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5): 528–537
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000160
18 P KDey (2001). Decision support system for risk management: A case study. Management Decision, 39(8): 634–649
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740110399558
19 M FDiab, A Varma, KPanthi (2017). Modeling the construction risk ratings to estimate the contingency in highway projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(8): 04017041
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001334
20 IDikmen, M T Birgonul, S Han (2007). Using fuzzy risk assessment to rate cost overrun risk in international construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5): 494–505
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.12.002
21 MEbrat, R Ghodsi (2014). Construction project risk assessment by using adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system: An empirical study. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(5): 1213–1227
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0139-5
22 NEhsan, E Mirza, MAlam, AIshaque (2010). Notice of Retraction Risk management in construction industry. 2010 3rd IEEE International Conference on the Computer Science and Information Technology (ICCSIT)
23 T MElhag, Y M Wang (2007). Risk assessment for bridge maintenance projects: Neural networks versus regression techniques. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 21(6): 402–409
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2007)21:6(402)
24 CFang, F Marle, EZio, J CBocquet (2012). Network theory-based analysis of risk interactions in large engineering projects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 106: 1–10
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.005
25 BFlyvbjerg (2007). Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: Problems, causes, cures. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 34(4): 578–597
https://doi.org/10.1068/b32111
26 NFragiadakis, V Tsoukalas, VPapazoglou (2014). An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (anfis) model for assessing occupational risk in the shipbuilding industry. Safety Science, 63: 226–235
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.013
27 SGadd, D Keeley, HBalmforth (2003). Good practice and pitfalls in risk assessment. Health & Safety Laboratory
28 JGosling, M Naim, DTowill (2012). Identifying and categorizing the sources of uncertainty in construction supply chains. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(1): 102–110
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000574
29 A FGüneri, TErtay, AYücel, (2011). An approach based on ANFIS input selection and modelling for supplier selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12): 14907–14917
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.05.056
30 JHuang, M Negnevitsky, D TNguyen (2002). A neural-fuzzy classifier for recognition of power quality disturbances. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 17(2): 609–616
https://doi.org/10.1109/61.997947
31 P MInstitute (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide. Project Management Institute
32 M SIslam, M P Nepal, M Skitmore, MAttarzadeh (2017). Current research trends and application areas of fuzzy and hybrid methods to the risk assessment of construction projects. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 33: 112–131
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2017.06.001
33 ISO (2009). 31000: 2009 Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland
34 KIyer, K Jha (2005). Factors affecting cost performance: Evidence from Indian construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4): 283–295
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.003
35 J SJang (1993). ANFIS: Adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 23(3): 665–685
https://doi.org/10.1109/21.256541
36 X HJin (2010). Neurofuzzy decision support system for efficient risk allocation in public-private partnership infrastructure projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 24(6): 525–538
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000058
37 RKangari (1988). Construction risk management. Civil Engineering Systems, 5(3): 114–120
https://doi.org/10.1080/02630258808970516
38 Y CKuo, S T Lu (2013). Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(4): 602–614
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.003
39 KLi, H Su, JChu (2011). Forecasting building energy consumption using neural networks and hybrid neuro-fuzzy system: A comparative study. Energy and Building, 43(10): 2893–2899
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.07.010
40 P AMahendra, J R Pitroda, J Bhavsar (2013). A study of risk management techniques for construction projects in developing countries. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 3(5): 139–142
41 M MMarzouk, T I El-Rasas (2014). Analyzing delay causes in Egyptian construction projects. Journal of Advanced Research, 5(1): 49–55
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2012.11.005
42 AMills (2001). A systematic approach to risk management for construction. Structural Survey, 19(5): 245–252
https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800110412615
43 AMoghayedi (2016). Improving Critical Path Method (CPM) by applying safety factor to manage delays. Scientia Iranica, 23(3): 815
44 AMoghayedi, A Windapo (2017). Developing a data gathering tool for modelling uncertainty in highway projects. The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century, 1: 773–781
45 AMoghayedi, A Windapo (2018). Identification of the uncertain events impacting on construction time of South African highway projects. Journal of Construction Project Management Innovation, 8(S1): 2146–2163
46 D SMoore, S Kirkland (2007). The Basic Practice of Statistics. New York: WH Freeman New York
47 YMoret, H H Einstein (2016). Construction cost and duration uncertainty model: Application to high-speed rail line project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(10): 05016010
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001161
48 MNegnevitsky (2005). Artificial Intelligence: A Guide to Intelligent Systems. London: Pearson Education
49 ANieto-Morote, F Ruz-Vila (2011). A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2): 220–231
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.002
50 S JOdediran, A O Windapo (2018). Risk-based entry decision into African construction markets: A proposed integrated model. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(1): 91–111
https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-05-2016-0021
51 SRenuka, C Umarani, SKamal (2014). A review on critical risk factors in the life cycle of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 4(2A): 31–36
52 D SSantoso, S Soeng (2016). Analyzing delays of road construction projects in Cambodia: Causes and effects. Journal of Management Engineering, 32(6): 05016020
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000467
53 MSaqib, R U Farooqui, S H Lodi (2008). Assessment of critical success factors for construction projects in Pakistan. The First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC-1), Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research and Practice, Karachi, Pakistan
54 VShahhosseini, M Sebt (2011). Competency-based selection and assignment of human resources to construction projects. Scientia Iranica, 18(2): 163–180
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2011.03.026
55 LShen, G W Wu, C S Ng (2001). Risk assessment for construction joint ventures in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1): 76–81
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:1(76)
56 E GSinesilassie, S Z STabish, K NJha (2017). Critical factors affecting schedule performance: A case of Ethiopian public construction projects–engineers’ perspective. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 24(5): 757–773
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0062
57 R MSkitmore, S T Ng (2003). Forecast models for actual construction time and cost. Building and Environment, 38(8): 1075–1083
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(03)00067-2
58 MTaghipour, F Seraj, M AHassani, S FKheirabadi (2015). Risk analysis in the management of urban construction projects from the perspective of the employer and the contractor. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 4(4): 356–373
https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2015.60284
59 JTah, V Carr (2000). A proposal for construction project risk assessment using fuzzy logic. Construction Management and Economics, 18(4): 491–500
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190050024905
60 TTakagi, M Sugeno (1983). Derivation of fuzzy control rules from human operator’s control actions. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 16(13): 55–60
61 W HTang, A Ang (2007). Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications to Civil & Environmental Engineering. New Jersey: Wiley Hoboken
62 AThomas, S N Kalidindi, K Ananthanarayanan (2003). Risk perception analysis of BOT road project participants in India. Construction Management and Economics, 21(4): 393–407
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000064127
63 LUgur (2017). A Neuro-Adaptive Learning (NAL) approach about costs of residential buildings. Acta Physica Polonica A, 132(3): 585–587
https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.132.585
64 XWang, J Zhu, FMa, CLi, Y Cai, Z.Yang (2016a). Bayesian network-based risk assessment for hazmat transportation on the Middle Route of the South-to-North Water Transfer Project in China. Stochastic Environmental Research Risk Assessment, 30(3): 841–857
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1113-6
65 JWang, H Yuan (2011). Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction projects: Case study from China. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2): 209–219
66 M TWang, H Y Chou (2003). Risk allocation and risk handling of highway projects in Taiwan. Journal of Management Engineering, 19(2): 60–68
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:2(60)
67 TWang, S Wang, LZhang, ZHuang, YLi (2016b). A major infrastructure risk-assessment framework: Application to a cross-sea route project in China. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7): 1403–1415
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.12.006
68 Y MWang, T M Elhag (2008). An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for bridge risk assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(4): 3099–3106
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.06.026
69 G MWinch (2010). Managing Construction Projects. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons
70 O AYoussef (2004). Combined fuzzy-logic wavelet-based fault classification technique for power system relaying. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 19(2): 582–589
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2004.826386
71 SYun, W Jung, S HHan, HPark (2015). Critical organizational success factors for public private partnership projects–a comparison of solicited and unsolicited proposals. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(2): 131–143
https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.802715
72 L AZadeh (1996). Soft computing and fuzzy logic. In: Klir G J, Yuan B, eds. Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems: Selected Papers by Lotfi a Zadeh. Singapore: World Scientific, 796–804
73 E KZavadskas, ZTurskis, JTamošaitiene (2010). Risk assessment of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(1): 33–46
https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.03
74 TZayed, M Amer, JPan (2008). Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4): 408–419
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.012
75 T MZayed, D W Halpin (2004). Quantitative assessment for piles productivity factors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(3): 405–414
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:3(405)
76 JZeng, M An, A H CChan (2005). A fuzzy reasoning decision making approach based multi-expert judgement for construction project risk analysis. The Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), London, UK
77 P XZou, G Zhang, JWang (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6): 601–614
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001
[1] Shuai LI, Da HU, Jiannan CAI, Hubo CAI. Real option-based optimization for financial incentive allocation in infrastructure projects under public–private partnerships[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(3): 413-425.
[2] Zachary A. COLLIER, James H. LAMBERT. Managing obsolescence of embedded hardware and software in secure and trusted systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 172-181.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed