archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/acme

Original Research Article

A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation

of construction equipment with sustainability
considerations

Mehdi Keshavarz Ghorabaee a, Maghsoud Amiri a,

Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas b,*, Jurgita Antucheviciene b
a
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University,
Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University, Vilnius, Lithuania

article info abstract

Article history: Because of the possible harmful effects of construction equipment on the environment,
Received 1 February 2017 evaluation of them can be considered as a helpful activity to move toward the sustainability
Accepted 22 April 2017 in construction. This evaluation process could involve some alternatives and some criteria
Available online 14 July 2017 in a discrete decision space. In this study, a new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) approach is proposed to deal with this evaluation process in the fuzzy environment.
Keywords: We present fuzzy extensions of the SWARA (Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis)
Construction equipment and CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) methods for determining
Sustainability subjective and objective weights of criteria. Based on these extended methods and the fuzzy
Fuzzy EDAS EDAS (Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution) method, a new hybrid approach
Fuzzy SWARA is proposed. In this approach, the subjective and objective criteria weights are combined to
Fuzzy CRITIC determine more justified weights for criteria. The proposed approach is applied to a case
study of construction equipment evaluation with sustainability considerations. To examine
the result of evaluation, a sensitivity analysis is performed based on varying criteria weights.
A comparison is also made between the results of the proposed approach and some existing
MCDM methods. These analyses show the stability and validity of the results and efficiency
of the proposed approach.
© 2017 Politechnika Wrocławska. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.

have their own level of application in the construction

1. Introduction
Nowadays we can see the incremental development in
construction technology and mechanization of the construc-
tion projects. Different types of equipment and machineries
projects. The role of construction equipment and machineries
is significant to improve the performance, efficiency, produc-
tivity and working standards of construction companies and
contractors [1]. Most of the construction equipment, machin-
eries and vehicles which are power-driven by diesel engine

* Corresponding author at: Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania.

E-mail address: edmundas.zavadskas@vgtu.lt (E.K. Zavadskas).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011
1644-9665/© 2017 Politechnika Wrocławska. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 33

have a high impact on environment, and the emissions from impacts of equipment. Kim and Kim [21] developed a method
them can be considered as a source of air pollution [2]. to select earth-moving equipment based on the construction
Construction industry should be responsible for environmen- costs, construction duration and environmental impacts. In
tal impacts of its activities, which can lead to high energy their study, the environmental impacts were considered as the
consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, waste generation pollution costs (per ton of emission), and an Improved Weight
and land consumption. In many industries, sustainability is Decision Method (IWDM) was used to determine the weight of
considered as an ultimate objective which can make a balance variables to find the best equipment configuration.
between socio-economic activities and environmental con- As previously mentioned, the concept of sustainability is
cerns [3]. In fact, the concept of sustainability includes three based on three dimensions. Managing and controlling the GHG
dimensions: social, economic and environmental [4]. This emissions can be considered as an important factor in the
concept has been taken into consideration in construction environmental dimension of the sustainability. On the other
industry from different perspectives [5]. For example, we can hand, this factor is not the only factor in the environmental
refer to some recent researches on greenhouse gas emissions dimension, and there are many other factors that can be
in building construction [6], risks of sustainable construction regarded as environmental criteria. Moreover, social and
[7], life cycle assessment (LCA) of buildings [8], low-carbon road economic factors are also two main dimensions which should
foundation layers [9], sustainable design of concrete [10,11], be included in evaluation of construction processes to attain a
sustainability assessment of bridges [12], establishing sustain- sustainable construction. Waris et al. [22] studied on criteria
able strategies in urban underground engineering [13], and that can be used for evaluation of sustainable construction
sustainability in high-rise building [14]. equipment. They classified the criteria into three categories:
The evaluation and selection of equipment in the con- socio-economic criteria, engineering criteria and environmen-
struction industry has been studied by many researchers tal criteria. Table 1 represents their categorization of criteria
during the past years. Goldenberg and Shapira [15] presented a
model based on analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to address
the difficulties experienced during the multifaceted process
Table 1 – Sustainability criteria for construction equip-
and applied it to construction equipment evaluation. Scha- ment [22].
bowicz and Hoła [16] applied the artificial neural networks to
Socio-economic Ownership cost
predict the effectiveness ratios of earthmoving machinery.
criteria Operational cost
They used a dataset consisting of the technical parameters of Availability of local skilled operator
earthmoving machinery systems and the corresponding Operator health
effectiveness ratios to train neural networks. Jrade and Markiz Operator view and comfort
[17] developed a decision-support model using a linear cost Safety features
optimization approach for evaluation of heavy equipment. Operator proficiency
Training needs for operator
The main purpose of their model was to facilitate the interface
Relationship with dealer/supplier
between operational analyses, user input data, and optimi-
zation functions. Phogat and Singh [18] applied the AHP, Engineering Equipment age
simple additive weighting (SAW), distance based method criteria Equipment capacity
Equipment reliability
(DBM), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METH-
Equipment efficiency
od for Enrichment of Evaluations) and ELECTRE (ELimination Equipment operating life
and Choice Expressing REality) to selection of equipment for Equipment productivity
construction of a hilly road. Fuel efficiency
We can say that the evaluation of construction equipment Implement system
with respect to relevant factors is one of the important Traction system
Structure and suspension system
activities that can help to move toward the sustainability.
Power train system
However, the above-mentioned studies have not considered
Control and information system
the concept of sustainability in the evaluation process of Compliance with site operating conditions
construction equipment. There are some studies that have Meet job/operational requirements
focused on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of construction Meet haul road condition
equipment in the process of construction. Hasan et al. [19] Versatility of equipment
presented a methodology for crane selection in high-rise Easy repair and maintenance
Machine/equipment standardization
building construction projects based on crane productivity
Spare parts availability
performance, carbon footprint impact and simulation process.
Their approach helps to quantify and assess the carbon Environmental Greenhouse gas emissions
criteria Fossil fuel consumption
footprint (CO2 emissions) associated with the tower crane
Energy saving
operation. Heidari and Marr [20] employed a portable emission
Vibration and noise control
measurement system (PEMS) for measuring and monitoring Quantity of particulate matter
real-time emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide Oil/lube leakage control
(CO), hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from construc- Use of sustainable fuels
tion equipment to obtain emission rates and emission factors Use of biodegradable lubricants and
under real-world operating conditions. Their approach pro- hydraulic oil
Environmental statutory compliance
vides practitioners with information to assess environmental
34 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49
and sub-criteria for evaluation of construction equipment to
approach the concept of sustainability. As can be seen in this
table, we are confronted with multiple criteria to evaluate
construction equipment. Therefore, the evaluation of con-
struction equipment according to sustainability factors can be
considered as a multi-criteria decision-making process. The
MCDM methods and techniques have been widely used in
construction problems, and Jato-Espino et al. [23] presented a
comprehensive review of applications of multi-criteria deci-
sion-making methods in construction. However, these meth-
ods have been utilized by few researchers to evaluate
construction equipment, and we have already mentioned
some of them in this section. The aim of this study is to
propose a new hybrid MCDM approach and to apply it to the
evaluation of construction equipment with consideration of
sustainability criteria. We use the sustainability criteria
presented in Table 1 in the evaluation process.
Evaluation process in the MCDM problems usually involves
uncertain data which can make this process complicated for
decision-makers (DMs). This issue can also affect the evalua-
tion of construction equipment, but has not been taken into
consideration by researchers deeply. The fuzzy set theory,
which was introduced by Zadeh [24] in 1965, is the most
common and efficient tool to model the uncertainty of the
MCDM problems. Using the fuzzy set theory in these problems
leads to introduce many fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making
approaches that have been widely used in scientific and
engineering problems.
Many studies have been conducted with focusing on
applications of fuzzy MCDM approaches in the construction
problems. Antucheviciene et al. [25] reviewed the applications
of fuzzy MCDM methods for dealing with construction and
civil engineering problems. In addition to the above-men-
tioned studies, there are many researches that extended fuzzy
MCDM approaches or applied them to some other fields.
Aliakbari Nouri et al. [26] developed an integrated MCDM
approach based on the fuzzy analytic network process and
fuzzy TOPSIS methods for evaluation and selection of an
appropriate technology in an Iranian company. Liao et al. [27]
integrated the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, fuzzy additive
ratio assessment (ARAS) and multi-segment goal program-
ming methods to propose a model for evaluation and selection
of green suppliers. Jaskowski et al. [28] presented a new
extended fuzzy AHP to determine the weights of criteria for
evaluation of contractors with a group of decision-makers.
They showed the superiority of their method to the traditional
fuzzy AHP. Keshavarz Ghorabaee [29] proposed an extended
VIKOR (VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno
Resenje) method for multi-criteria group decision-making in
the interval type-2 fuzzy environment and applied it to the
industrial robot selection problem. Ebrahimnejad et al. [30]
proposed an extended ELECTRE method based on interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets for selection of outsourcing
providers with multiple criteria. Önden et al. [31] presented a
model for evaluation of the logistics center locations by
integrating the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method and
geographic information systems (GIS) and applied it to a real
case study in Turkey. Balin and Baraçli [32] developed a fuzzy
multi-criteria decision-making methodology based on the AHP
and TOPSIS method with the interval type-2 fuzzy sets and
applied it to selecting a suitable renewable energy alternative
in Turkey. A comprehensive review of the extensions and
applications of the fuzzy MCDM approaches was performed by
Mardani et al. [33]. There are two important points that have
been neglected in many of the fuzzy MCDM approaches. First,
most of the proposed approaches have not considered the
subjective and objective weights of criteria simultaneously in
the process of fuzzy decision-making. Second, the effect of
interrelations between criteria has usually been disregarded in
the determination of objective weights with fuzzy informa-
tion. In the current study, we propose a new hybrid fuzzy
approach that can handle MCDM problems with respect to
these aspects.
Determination of the weights of criteria in an MCDM
problem has always been one of the main steps in the process
of decision-making. We can define two types of criteria
weights in an MCDM problem: subjective weights and
objective weights [34]. The subjective weights are usually
determined according to evaluations and preferences of
decision-makers. On the other hand, the objective weights
have no direct relation to the preferences of decision-makers
and are computed from information of a decision matrix. Both
of these types of criteria weights are important in decision-
making processes. However, simultaneous incorporation of
the subjective and objective weights has usually been
neglected by researchers. Many studies only used subjective
weights of criteria for solving MCDM problems. Different
methods can be used to obtain the subjective weights. One of
the most efficient methods is the SWARA (Step-wise Weight
Assessment Ratio Analysis) method [35]. The main advantage
of this method over the AHP method, which is the most
popular method for obtaining subjective weights, is the lower
number of pairwise comparisons. If we have m criteria, the
AHP method needs mðm
1Þ=2 pairwise comparisons. The
SWARA method, on the other hand, only needs m
1 pairwise
comparisons. The classical SWARA gives crisp weights for the
criteria. In this study, we extend the SWARA method in such a
way that the subjective weights could be fuzzy numbers. In
this extension, the preferences of decision-makers on the
criteria need to be expressed with a fuzziness value. The
objective weights are also determined using different methods
[34]. However, the interrelation between criteria is not
considered in most of them. The CRITIC (CRiteria Importance
Through Intercriteria Correlation) is one of the methods for
determination of this type of criteria weights [36]. The weights
obtained by this method incorporate two types of information:
the information of contrast intensity of the criteria and the
information of conflict (or interrelation) between criteria. We
develop an extended version of the CRITIC method to deal with
fuzzy data. Because both of the subjective and objective
weights are important in the decision-making, we design a
procedure to combine these weights to make a more
comprehensive model. For the final evaluation of alternatives,
we use the fuzzy EDAS (Evaluation based on Distance from
Average Solution) method. The EDAS method is an efficient
and relatively new MCDM method, which was firstly proposed
by Keshavarz Ghorabaee et al. [37] for multi-criteria inventory
classification. Keshavarz Ghorabaee et al. [38] developed an
extended fuzzy version of the EDAS method and applied it to
the supplier selection problem. Using the fuzzy EDAS method
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 35

and the extended SWARA and CRITIC methods, we propose a

new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach and apply it to the
evaluation of construction equipment according to sustain-
ability criteria. One of the superiorities of this hybrid approach
1
over the other fuzzy MCDM approaches is that the proposed
approach includes more information about criteria by using
combined weights in the process of evaluation. The main
contributions of this study are summarized as follows:

 We propose an extended SWARA method with fuzzy

information to determine the subjective weights of criteria. Fig. 1 – A triangular fuzzy number.
 A fuzzy CRITIC is extended to obtain the objective criteria
weights.
8
 A combination of the subjective weights (determined by the < ðx
a1 Þ=ða2
a1 Þ; a1 xa2
SWARA) and objective weights (determined by the CRITIC) is mA~ ðxÞ ¼ ða3
xÞ=ða3
a2 Þ; a2 xa3 (2)
:
used to improve the decision-making process. 0; otherwise
 A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach is proposed based on
the SWARA, CRITIC and EDAS methods. This fuzzy number can also be defined by a triplet
 The proposed hybrid approach is applied to the evaluation of ~ ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 Þ. An example of this type of fuzzy numbers is
A
construction equipment with sustainability considerations. shown in Fig. 1.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, ~ ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 Þ and B

~ ¼ ðb1 ; b2 ; b3 Þ be
Definition 4. Suppose that A
we present some basic concepts and definitions about fuzzy
two positive triangular fuzzy numbers ða1  0 and b1  0Þ and k
sets and fuzzy numbers. In Section 3, the proposed approach is
is a crisp number. The arithmetic operations with these fuzzy
described in details with three sub-sections. In Section 4, we
numbers are defined as follows [41]:
use a numerical example to demonstrate the efficiency of the
proposed method. This section includes a case study with a  Addition:
sensitivity analysis. A discussion is presented in Section 5. ~ B
A ~ ¼ ða1 þ b1 ; a2 þ b2 ; a3 þ b3 Þ (3)
Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section 6.
~ þ k ¼ ða1 þ k; a2 þ k; a3 þ kÞ
A (4)
2. Basic concepts and definitions
 Subtraction:
~ B
A ~ ¼ ða1
b3 ; a2
b2 ; a3
b1 Þ (5)
Most of the traditional tools for formal modeling, reasoning,
and computing are crisp, deterministic, and precise in ~
A
k ¼ ða1
k; a2
k; a3
kÞ (6)
character. However, we are confronted with uncertainty in
many situations and using these tools is too restrictive.  Multiplication:
Decision-making is one of the processes that can be affected by ~ B
A ~ ¼ ða1
b1 ; a2
b2 ; a3
b3 Þ (7)
the uncertainty of information. The fuzzy set theory is one of

the most efficient tools which can be used to handle the ~ ða1
k; a2
k; a3
kÞ if k0
A
k ¼ (8)
uncertainty, especially in the decision-making processes. In ða3
k; a2
k; a1
kÞ if k<0
this section, we present some concepts and definitions of the
fuzzy sets and fuzzy numbers.  Division:
~ of a universal set X can be ~ B
A, ~ ¼ ða1 =b3 ; a2 =b2 ; a3 =b1 Þ (9)
Definition 1. A fuzzy subset A
defined by its membership function mA~ ðxÞ as [39]: 
~ ¼ ða1 =k; a2 =k; a3 =kÞ if k>0
A=k (10)
ða3 =k; a2 =k; a1 =kÞ if k<0

 
~¼
A x; mA~ ðxÞ jx 2 X (1)

where x 2 X denotes the elements belonging to the universal

~ ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 Þ be a triangular fuzzy number.
Definition 5. Let A
set, and mA~ ðxÞ : X ! ½0; 1:
Then, the defuzzified (crisp) value of this fuzzy number can be
defined as follows [42]:
Definition 2. A fuzzy number is a special case of a convex,


normalized fuzzy subset supmA~ ðxÞ ¼ 1 of the real line
 1

 ~ ¼ ða1 þ a2 þ a3 Þ
k A (11)
R mA~ ðxÞ : R ! ½0; 1 [40]. 3

Definition 6. The symmetric triangular fuzzy number cen-

Definition 3. A fuzzy number A~ is a triangular fuzzy number if tered at a with basis 2s (fuzziness value = s) is defined as
its membership function is [41]: follows [43]:
36 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49

8 Step 3 Calculate the coefficient Krjp for each criterion as

< ðx
a þ s Þ=s; a
sxa
mA~ ðxÞ ¼ ða þ s
xÞ=s; axa þ s (12) follows:
: (
0; otherwise: ð1; 1; 1Þ if rjp ¼ 1
~
Krjp ¼ (14)
1þS ~r if rjp > 1
jp

~ ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 Þ be a triangular fuzzy

Definition 7. Suppose that A
number. A function is defined to find the maximum between a
Step 4 Determine the recalculated weighting factors Q rjp as
triangular fuzzy number and zero [38].
follows:
(
( ð1; 1; 1Þ if rjp ¼ 1

 ~r ¼
Q (15)

 ~ if k A
A ~ >0 jp ~ r
1 , K
Q ~r if rjp > 1
~ ¼
C A
 (13) jp jp
~ if k A
0 ~ 0

~ ¼ ð0; 0; 0Þ.
where 0 Step 5 The fuzzy subjective weights of the criteria (sub-
criteria) with respect to pth decision-maker are deter-
mined as follows:
!
m
3. Proposed approach ~s ¼ Q
w ~r ,  Q~r (16)
jp jp jp
rjp ¼1

In this section, we present the details of our proposed

approach. The proposed approach consists of three main
parts including fuzzy SWARA, fuzzy CRITIC and fuzzy EDAS
methods. Firstly, the fuzzy SWARA and CRITIC methods are
described in separate sub-sections. Then a hybrid approach is
developed by integrating these methods with the fuzzy EDAS
method.
3.1. Fuzzy SWARA
Evaluation of criteria by decision-makers, which are usually
expert in their field, and weighting them in the process of
decision-making leads to subjective weights of criteria. Due to
significant role of the criteria weights, we should use a method
that the preferences of decision-makers can efficiently be
extracted and the weights can easily be obtained. The SWARA
method is one of the new methods for determination of
weights (subjective weights) of criteria [35]. In this method,
decision-makers' preferences are regarded as the most
significant deciding factor in calculation of weights. In this
section, we develop an extended fuzzy SWARA method to
determine the subjective weights of criteria. Suppose that we
have m criteria (sub-criteria) and k decision-makers. The
process of determining the subjective weights of criteria (sub-
criteria) by a group of decision-makers using the SWARA
method can be shown in the following steps:
Step 1 Based on the expected significance of the criteria (sub-
criteria), each of the decision-makers sorts them in
descending order. rjp denotes the rank of jth criterion in
the sorted list of pth decision-maker ðp ¼ 1; 2; . . .; kÞ.
Step 2 Starting from the criterion (sub-criterion) in the


second place rjp ¼ 2 , each decision-maker expresses
the relative importance of each criterion (sub-criteri-
on) in relation to the previous criterion (sub-criterion)
in the sorted list with a fuzziness value. Suppose that
Srjp and s rjp represent the relative importance (Com-
parative Importance of Average Value) and the
corresponding fuzziness value, respectively. Then
the symmetric triangular fuzzy number (Definition 6)
of decision-makers'
 expression
 is defined as
~r ¼ Sr
s r ; Sr ; Sr þ s r .
S criteria.
jp jp jp jp jp jp
Step 6 Determine the average fuzzy subjective weights of the
criteria (sub-criteria) as follows:
1 k s
~ sj ¼
w w~ (17)
k p¼1 jp
If the criteria have some sub-criteria, the final subjective
weights of the sub-criteria are calculated by multiplying
(Definition 4) their weights by the weights of the corresponding
criteria in the hierarchical structure of the problem. Suppose
that w ~ sgr
~ sg denotes the subjective weight of gth criterion and w
shows the subjective weight of rth sub-criterion of gth
criterion. Then, Fig. 2 represents the procedure for calculating
the global weights of sub-criteria in a hierarchical structure.
3.2. Fuzzy CRITIC
In the decision-making problems, criteria can be viewed as a
source of information. The importance weight of criteria could
reflect the amount of information contained in each of them in
the decision matrix. This weight is referred to as ‘‘objective
weight’’. The CRITIC is a method for determining the objective
weights of criteria in the MCDM problems [36]. The weights
derived by this method incorporate both contrast intensity of
each criterion and conflict between criteria. Contrast intensity
of criteria is considered by the standard deviation and conflict
between them is measured by the correlation coefficient. In
this section, we extend this method in a fuzzy environment.


Suppose that x ~ij ¼ xij1 ; xij2 ; xij3 represents the fuzzy perfor-
mance value of ith alternative according to jth criterion
Fig. 2 – The procedure of calculating global weights of sub-
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 37

 
~ oj ¼ woj1 ; woj2 ; woj3 denotes the
ði ¼ 1; 2; . . .n and j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; mÞ, w 3.3. Hybrid approach based on fuzzy EDAS
fuzzy objective weight of jth criterion, B is the set of beneficial
criteria and N is the set of non-beneficial criteria. The process The EDAS method is a multi-criteria decision-making method
of determining fuzzy objective weights of criteria based on this which introduced by Keshavarz Ghorabaee et al. [37]. This
method is summarized as follows: method was first utilized for classifying inventory items with
multiple criteria. However, it was demonstrated that the
Step 1 Calculate the transformations of performance values EDAS method is also efficient to deal with multi-criteria
and obtain criteria vectors as follows: decision-making problems in a general situation. The
8 x
x
evaluation of alternatives in this method is based on the
>
>
ijk jk
< x
x
if j 2 B
> distances of each alternative from the average solution with
xTijk ¼ x
jk
x jk (18) respect to each criterion. The average solution in this
> jk ijk
>
>
: x

x if j 2 N
jk jk
procedure is a feasible solution which includes average
elements obtained on each criterion. The desirability of the
 
xjk ¼ xT1jk ; xT2jk ; . . .; xTnjk (19) solutions (alternatives) in the EDAS method is calculated
based on the positive and negative distances from the average
where xTijk is the transformed value of kth element of x ~ij solution. Each alternative has a positive and a negative
ðk ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ, xjk denotes the kth vector of jth criterion, xjk distance from the average solution on each criterion, and
and x
jk are the ideal and anti-ideal values with respect
these distances are calculated according to the type of criteria
to jth criterion and kth element of x ~ij . If j 2 B, then xjk ¼ (beneficial or non-beneficial). The alternative which has more
maxi xijk and xjk ¼ mini xijk , and if j 2 N, then xjk ¼

positive distances and less negative distances from the
mini xijk and x
jk ¼ maxi xijk .
average solution is the best alternative. Moreover, the
normalization process is performed when we obtain the


Step 2 Calculate the standard deviation s jk of each vector distance elements. This procedure enables the EDAS method


xjk . to handle MCDM problems without converting the non-
Step 3 Construct three symmetric matrices, with dimension beneficial criteria to beneficial criteria. The fuzzy EDAS
m
mh i and generic elements rkjj0 method is a new and efficient method to deal with multi-
k 0
ðR ¼ rjj0k
; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m and k ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ. The ele- criteria decision-making problems in an uncertain environ-
m
m
ments of these matrices are the linear correlation ment with fuzzy information [38]. In this section, we integrate
coefficient between the vectors xjk and xj0 k . the proposed fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy CRITIC with the fuzzy
It should be noted that if all elements of xjk or xj0 k EDAS method. The framework of the proposed hybrid
vectors are  identical,  we can suppose that there is no approach is shown in Fig. 3. The main difference between
correlation rkjj0 ¼ 0 . this hybrid approach and the other fuzzy MCDM approaches
Step 4 Calculate the information measures of each criterion like the fuzzy WASPAS, COPRAS, TOPSIS, VIKOR and EDAS is
as follows: related to determining the weights of criteria and using
m 
X  combined weights in the process. The proposed approach
Hjk ¼ s jk 1
rkjj0 (20) combines the subjective weights with the objective weights of
j0 ¼1
criteria. The subjective weights are determined by the fuzzy
SWARA method that needs a lower number of pairwise
Step 5 Determine the unsorted objective weights elements as comparisons than the AHP method, and the fuzzy CRITIC,
follows: which employs two types of information (contrast intensity
Hjk and conflict of criteria), are utilized for calculating the
wujk ¼ Pm (21) objective weights. Using these combined weights, we can
j0 ¼1 Hjj
0

incorporate more information about the criteria of a problem

Step 6 Determine
  the initial fuzzy objective weights of criteria into the decision-making process.
~ oi
w j using the following formulas: The following three basic conditions should be met by a
company or organization which aims to apply the proposed
woi u
j3 ¼ max wjk (22) approach in practice:
k

woi  The company or organization should be able to appoint at

j2 ¼ max wjk
u
(23)
k;wujk 6¼ woi
j3 least one expert, which is familiar with the problem, as
decision-maker(s).
woi u
j1 ¼ min wjk (24)  The decision-maker(s) should be able to identify potential
k
alternatives for evaluations. If we have more than one
Step 7 Normalize the initial fuzzy objective weights and decision-maker, the decision-makers should be agreed on
determine the final weights as follows: the potential alternatives.
!  The decision-maker(s) should be able to select and define
1 m oi some criteria for evaluation of the potential alternatives. If
~ oj
w ¼ ~ oi
w j , w~ (25)
m j¼1 j we have more than one decision-maker, the decision-
makers should be agreed on the selected criteria.
38 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49

Fig. 3 – The framework of the proposed hybrid approach.

The detailed steps of the proposed approach are presented Determine the matrix of average solutions, shown as
in this section. Suppose that we have a set of n alternatives follows:
ðA ¼ fA1 ; A2 ; . . .; An gÞ, a set of m criteria ðC ¼ fC1 ; C2 ; . . .; Cm gÞ

AV ¼ a fvj 1
m (28)
and k decision-makers ðD ¼ fD1 ; D2 ; . . .; Dk gÞ. The steps of the
hybrid fuzzy approach method are presented as follows: where,
n
1
Step 1 Form the decision-making group and identify the fvj ¼
a  x~ij (29)
n
evaluation criteria. i¼1
Step 2 Use the fuzzy SWARA and determine the fuzzy

The elements of this matrix af
vj represent the
subjective weights of criteria.
average solutions with respect to each criterion.
Step 3 Each decision-maker evaluates the alternatives with
Therefore, the dimension of the matrix is equal to
respect to each criterion.
the dimension of criteria weights matrix.
Step 4 Construct the average decision matrix ðXÞ, shown as
follows: Step 6 Suppose that B is the set of beneficial criteria and N is

the set of non-beneficial criteria. In this step the
X¼ x ~ij n
m (26)
matrixes of positive distance from average ðPDAÞ and
where, negative distance from average ðNDAÞ are calculated
1 k p according to the type of criteria (beneficial and non-
~ij ¼
x x (27)
k p¼1 ij beneficial), shown as follows:
h i
p PDA ¼ pdag (30)
and xij denotes the performance value of alternative Ai ij
n
m
ð1inÞ with respect to criterion Cj ð1jmÞ assigned h i
by the pth decision-maker ð1pkÞ. g
NDA ¼ nda (31)
ij
n
m
Step 5
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 39

8

> C x ~ij afvj 4.1. Case study
>
> if j2B
< fvj
a
g ¼
pda
 (32)
ij
>
> C f
a v ~ij
j x A case study is provided in this section to illustrate the
>
: if j2N
af vj procedure and show the applicability of the proposed fuzzy
MCDM approach in evaluating sustainable construction
8

> C a fvj x ~ij equipment. The case study is related to an Iranian construc-
>
> if j2B
< fvj
g ¼

a
 tion company, which is called ‘‘KSN’’ in this section. KSN is an
nda (33)
ij
>
> C ~
x ij a fvj international general contracting company providing premier
>
: if j2N
af vj construction services worldwide. As part of an overall
restructuring, KSN set up a specialized machinery and
g and nda
where pda g denote the positive distance and
ij ij
equipment department charged with the task of managing
negative distance of the performance value of ith
the company's growing fleet. The main goal of this restructur-
alternative from the average solution in terms of jth
ing is to increase responsiveness to the constantly changing
criterion, respectively.
requirements of project execution and achieve greater
Step 7 Calculate the fuzzy objective weights of criteria using flexibility and efficiency. In the restructuring process, the
the fuzzy CRITIC method. department determined that the company needs to buy two
Step 8 Calculate the combination of the fuzzy subjective new excavators for its fleet. A group of three decision-makers
weights (from fuzzy SWARA) and the fuzzy objective ðD1 to D3 Þ was formed by the department for performing this
weights (from fuzzy CRITIC), shown as follows: evaluation. There were many types and choices of excavators
~ j ¼ lw
w ~ sj ð1
lÞw
~ oj (34) in the market. However, most of them had not the basic
requirements of the company, and the group of decision-
and w~ j denotes the weight of criterion Cj ð1jmÞ and makers decided to limit the number of choices for evaluation.
0 ≤ l ≤ 1. After an initial screening, five alternatives remain ðA1 to A5 Þ for
Step 9 Calculate the weighted sum of the positive and further evaluations. Due to the importance of social and
negative distances for all alternatives, shown as environmental aspects for the company, the group of decision-
follows: makers was requested by the department to make this
m  evaluation with respect to the sustainability factors. A list of
f
spi ¼  w g
~ j pda (35)
ij
j¼1 sustainability criteria and sub-criteria presented by Waris et al.
[22] (shown in Table 1) was given to the decision-makers for
m 
sf
ni ¼  w g
~ j nda (36) selecting the criteria (sub-criteria) which are relevant to the
ij
j¼1
requirements of the company for the evaluation. The criteria
(sub-criteria) selected by two or more decision-makers were
Step 10 The normalize values of sfpi and sf
ni for all alternatives approved to be used in the decision-making process. Accord-
are calculated as follows: ing to the decision-makers' opinions, the hierarchical struc-
f
spi ture of the decision-making problem is depicted in Fig. 4. In
g
n spi ¼

 (37)
maxi k sf
pi this structure, we have three criteria (socio-economic, engi-
neering and environmental), and each of these criteria has five
sfn sub-criteria which were selected by the decision-makers
ng
sni ¼ 1


i  (38)
maxi k sf ni (fifteen sub-criteria in total). The definitions of these criteria
and sub-criteria are as follows:


fsi for all alternatives,
Step 11 Calculate the appraisal scores a
shown as follows:  Socio-economic (C1): This criterion includes some sub-
1
 criteria which are related to the social and economic aspects
f
asi ¼ ngspi ng
sni (39)
2 of construction equipment evaluation.
 Ownership cost ðC11 Þ: This sub-criterion is defined as a
Step 12 Rank the alternatives according to the decreasing financial estimate intended to help buyers and owners for


values of appraisal scores a fsi . In other words, the determining the direct and indirect costs of construction
alternative with the highest appraisal score is the best equipment.
choice among the alternatives.  Operational cost ðC12 Þ: This sub-criterion is defined as the
expenses which are related to the operation of construc-
tion equipment. The operational cost of equipment may
include salaries or wages of personnel, property taxes,
4. Numerical example Maintenance of equipment, etc.
 Safety features ðC13 Þ: This sub-criterion is related to the
In this section, a case study of construction equipment features of equipment that help to increase the safety of
evaluation is presented to illustrate the procedure of the workers against hazards of construction.
proposed method. Then we perform a sensitivity analysis  Availability of local skilled operator ðC14 Þ: This sub-criterion is
based on varying the weights of criteria to examine the related to the amount of skilled labor in the company (or
changes in results and show the efficiency of the proposed near to the company) available for operating the equip-
approach. ment.
40 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49
Fig. 4 – The hierarchical structure of the problem.
 Training needs for operator ðC15 Þ: This sub-criterion is
defined as the amount of additional training needed for
the operators of the construction equipment.
 Engineering (C2): This criterion is related to the engineering
design/performance aspects of construction equipment and
includes some sub-criteria.
 Spare parts availability (C21): Unavailability of spare parts of
construction equipment leads to discontinuation or
decreasing the speed of construction process. This sub-
criterion measures this important factor for equipment.
 Equipment efficiency ðC22 Þ: This sub-criterion is related to the
ability of construction equipment to avoid wasting energy/
fuel and time in doing the process.
 Equipment reliability ðC23 Þ: Equipment reliability is a sub-
criterion that estimates the degree of dependability of
equipment. It is a measure of the chance of remaining in-
service to a point in time.
 Equipment capacity ðC24 Þ: This sub-criterion is related to the
volume of work that can be handled by construction
equipment.
 Equipment age ðC25 Þ: This sub-criterion is related to an
estimation of age of construction equipment that can be
appraised by decision-makers based on hours of opera-
tion.
 Environmental (C3): This criterion includes some sub-criteria
that are related to the environmental aspects of construction
equipment.
 Greenhouse gas emissions ðC31 Þ: This sub-criterion is related
to the estimated amount of greenhouse gas emitted by
equipment. According to the type, age and wornness of the
equipment, this factor can be appraised by decision-
makers.
 Oil/lube leakage control ðC32 Þ: Environmental studies show
that a portion of the leaked oil/lube ends up in ground
water, rivers, lakes, and in the soil itself, causing damage
to the environment. This sub-criterion is related to the
ability of the construction equipment to control this
leakage.
 Fossil fuel consumption ðC33 Þ: Consumption of fossil fuel is an
important environmental factor because it can affect the
amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by construction
equipment. This sub-criterion can be estimated by
decision-makers according to the type of equipment.
 Vibration and noise control ðC34 Þ: The dominant source of
vibration and noise from most construction equipment is
the engine, usually a diesel, without sufficient muffling.
This sub-criterion is related to the ability of equipment to
control this source of vibration and noise.
 Environmental statutory compliance ðC35 Þ: This sub-criterion
is related to degree of compliance of the operational
conditions of equipment with the national and interna-
tional environmental statutes or laws.
The following steps represent the process of evaluation of
alternatives according to this structure and the proposed
MCDM approach.
Steps 1 and 2. According to the structure of the problem and
preferences of each member of the group of
decision-makers, fuzzy subjective weights of
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 41

Table 2 – The subjective weights of the criteria by SWARA.

Decision-maker Criteria rjp Srjp s rjp ~ sjp
w ~ sj
w

D1 C1 1 – – (0.287,0.293,0.298) –
C2 2 0.34 0.03 (0.209,0.218,0.228) –
C3 3 0.11 0.06 (0.179,0.197,0.217) –

D2 C1 1 – – (0.293,0.3,0.307) –
C2 2 0.4 0.06 (0.201,0.214,0.229) –
C3 3 0.16 0.04 (0.167,0.185,0.205) –

D3 C1 1 – – (0.302,0.307,0.312) –
C3 2 0.2 0.08 (0.204,0.21,0.217) –
C2 3 0.46 0.02 (0.159,0.175,0.194) –

Average C1 – – – – (0.294,0.3,0.306)
C2 –– – – – (0.19,0.202,0.217)
C3 – – – – (0.183,0.197,0.213)

the criteria and sub-criteria are determined
using the fuzzy SWARA method. As previously
stated, the final (global) subjective weights of
sub-criteria, which are used in the following
steps, are calculated by multiplying them by
the weights of the corresponding criteria. The
results of the fuzzy SWARA method for the
criteria and sub-criteria are represented in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
Step 3. Using the linguistic variables, which are de-
A 2
A 5
A 3
A 4.
fined in Table 4 with the corresponding fuzzy
numbers [44], the decision-makers evaluated
each alternative with respect to each criterion.
The results are shown in Table 5.
Steps 4 and 5. According to Table 5, and Eqs. (26) and (27), the
average decision matrix are calculated. Then
we can construct the matrix of average solu-
tion using Eqs. (28) and (29). Table 6 shows the
results of these steps.
Step 6. Using the results of the previous steps and
Eqs. (30)–(33), the matrixes of the positive and
negative distances can be obtained. For this
calculation, we should define the sets of
beneficial and non-beneficial criteria (sub-
criteria). In this problem, B¼
fC13 ; C14 ; C21 ; C22 ; C23 ; C24 ; C32 ; C34 ; C35 g and
N ¼ fC11 ; C12 ; C15 ; C25 ; C31 ; C33 g. The results are
shown in Tables 7 and 8.
Steps 7 and 8. According to the average decision matrix and
fuzzy CRITIC method (Eqs. (18)–(25)), the fuzzy
objective weights of the criteria (sub-criteria)
are calculated. Then using Eq. (34) we combine
the resulted weights with the subjective
weighs calculated in Step 2 and obtain the
final weights of the criteria (sub-criteria).
Table 9 shows the fuzzy objective weights
and the combined weights.
Steps 9–11. Using the combined weights and Eqs. (35) and
(36), the weighted sum of positive and negative
distances (sf pi and sf ni ) are obtained. Then the
normalized values of them (n gspi and ng sni ) and


the appraisal score f asi of all alternatives are
calculated by Eqs. (37)–(39). These results are
presented in Table 10.
Step 12. According to the results shown in Table 10,
we can see that the alternative A1 has the
highest appraisal score, and A2 is in the
second place. Thus these alternatives are
more appropriate for choosing by the compa-
ny with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Moreover, the final ranking of alternatives is
A 1
4.2. Sensitivity analysis and comparison
We have determined the ranking of alternatives in the
previous section using a combination of the fuzzy subjective
and objective weights of the criteria. Although this combina-
tion provides us with a good estimation of the weights of
criteria, we examine the effect of changing weights on the
ranking of alternatives. The stable results can improve the
final decision for selecting the suitable alternatives. Varying
the weights of criteria helps us to show the stability of the
ranking result. We use different sets that follow a simple
pattern to vary the criteria weights. In each set, one criterion
has the highest weight, one other criterion has the lowest
weight and the other criteria have some values between the
lowest and highest weights. Table 11 shows the pattern for
generating the sets of criteria weights in a general case with m
criteria. In this table, s is a value for normalization of weight
P
and s ¼ m j¼1 j ¼ mðm þ 1Þ=2. As can be seen, in this pattern,
each set can be obtained by shifting the elements of any of the
other sets, and the number of sets is equal to the number of
criteria. According to the number of criteria in the case study,
fifteen sets of weights are generated for this analysis. These
sets follow a specific pattern. Using this pattern enables us to
examine the effect of varying the criteria weights efficiently [45].
Table 12 represents the weights of each criterion in each set,
and Fig. 5 shows the graphical view of them.
The problem is solved using each of these sets separately.
Table 13 shows the brief results of each set with the appraisal
scores and ranks of the alternatives. The final row of this table
represents the standard deviation (SD) of rank of each
42 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49

Table 3 – The subjective weights of the criteria by SWARA.

Criteria Decision-maker Sub-criteria rjp Srjp s rjp ~ sjp
w ~ sj
Local w ~ sj
Global w

C1 D1 C11 1 – – (0.191,0.197,0.203) – –
C13 2 0.06 0.02 (0.177,0.186,0.195) – –
C12 3 0.07 0.03 (0.161,0.174,0.188) – –
C15 4 0.35 0.03 (0.117,0.129,0.142) – –
C14 5 0.1 0.02 (0.104,0.117,0.132) – –
D2 C11 1 – – (0.209,0.22,0.231) – –
C12 2 0.17 0.05 (0.172,0.188,0.206) – –
C13 3 0.15 0.04 (0.144,0.164,0.186) – –
C15 4 0.4 0.06 (0.099,0.117,0.139) – –
C14 5 0.3 0.05 (0.073,0.09,0.111) – –
D3 C11 1 – – (0.215,0.224,0.233) – –
C13 2 0.1 0.03 (0.191,0.204,0.218) – –
C12 3 0.33 0.04 (0.139,0.153,0.169) – –
C14 4 0.45 0.07 (0.091,0.106,0.122) – –
C15 5 0.2 0.06 (0.073,0.088,0.107) – –
Average C11 – – – – (0.205,0.214,0.222) (0.06,0.064,0.068)
C12 – – – – (0.157,0.172,0.188) (0.046,0.052,0.058)
C13 – – – – (0.171,0.185,0.2) (0.05,0.056,0.061)
C14 – – – – (0.089,0.104,0.122) (0.026,0.031,0.037)
C15 – – – – (0.096,0.111,0.129) (0.028,0.033,0.039)

C2 D1 C22 1 – – (0.232,0.243,0.253) – –
C21 2 0.45 0.05 (0.155,0.168,0.181) – –
C23 3 0.32 0.07 (0.111,0.127,0.145) – –
C24 4 0.04 0.02 (0.105,0.122,0.142) – –
C25 5 0.25 0.03 (0.082,0.098,0.116) – –
D2 C22 1 – – (0.224,0.23,0.236) – –
C23 2 0.35 0.03 (0.163,0.17,0.179) – –
C21 3 0.3 0.03 (0.122,0.131,0.141) – –
C24 4 0.05 0.01 (0.115,0.125,0.135) – –
C25 5 0.1 0.02 (0.103,0.114,0.125) – –
D3 C22 1 – – (0.221,0.231,0.241) – –
C23 2 0.25 0.05 (0.17,0.185,0.201) – –
C21 3 0.35 0.04 (0.122,0.137,0.154) – –
C25 4 0.15 0.05 (0.102,0.119,0.14) – –
C24 5 0.25 0.03 (0.08,0.095,0.114) – –
Average C21 – – – – (0.133,0.145,0.159) (0.025,0.029,0.035)
C22 – – – – (0.226,0.235,0.243) (0.043,0.047,0.053)
C23 – – – – (0.148,0.161,0.175) (0.028,0.033,0.038)
C24 – – – – (0.1,0.114,0.13) (0.019,0.023,0.028)
C25 – – – – (0.096,0.11,0.127) (0.018,0.022,0.028)

C3 D1 C31 1 – – (0.254,0.266,0.277) – –
C35 2 0.55 0.08 (0.156,0.172,0.188) – –
C33 3 0.35 0.05 (0.111,0.127,0.145) – –
C32 4 0.4 0.05 (0.077,0.091,0.107) – –
C34 5 0.15 0.02 (0.066,0.079,0.095) – –
D2 C35 1 – – (0.218,0.225,0.232) – –
C31 2 0.33 0.03 (0.16,0.169,0.178) – –
C33 3 0.25 0.05 (0.123,0.135,0.149) – –
C32 4 0.05 0.01 (0.116,0.129,0.143) – –
C34 5 0.1 0.02 (0.104,0.117,0.132) – –
D3 C31 1 – – (0.214,0.225,0.236) – –
C35 2 0.25 0.06 (0.164,0.18,0.198) – –
C32 3 0.25 0.03 (0.128,0.144,0.162) – –
C33 4 0.15 0.05 (0.106,0.125,0.148) – –
C34 5 0.25 0.03 (0.083,0.1,0.121) – –
Average C31 – – – – (0.209,0.22,0.23) (0.038,0.043,0.049)
C32 – – – – (0.107,0.121,0.137) (0.02,0.024,0.029)
C33 – – – – (0.113,0.129,0.147) (0.021,0.025,0.031)
C34 – – – – (0.084,0.099,0.116) (0.015,0.02,0.025)
C35 – – – – (0.179,0.192,0.206) (0.033,0.038,0.044)
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 43

Table 4 – The linguistic variables with fuzzy numbers. and A5 are different from the final result obtained in previous
Linguistic variables Triangular fuzzy number section. Although this analysis advises the decision-makers of
a careful assessment about A3 and A5, it demonstrated that the
Very low (VL) (0,0, 0.1)
ranking result is relatively stable, and A1 and A2 are more
Low (L) (0,0.1,0.3)
desirable alternatives than the others.
Medium low (ML) (0.1,0.3,0.5)
Medium (M) (0.3,0.5,0.7) For validating the results of the proposed approach, the
Medium high (MH) (0.5,0.7,0.9) problem is solved using the crisp versions of the WASPAS,
High (H) (0.7,0.9,1) COPRAS, TOPSIS and VIKOR methods. For this aim, firstly,
Very high (VH) (0.9,1,1) the fuzzy values of the average decision matrix obtained in
previous section are transformed to crisp values by using
Definition 5. Then different sets of criteria weights are
utilized for solving the problem with different methods. The
alternative. As can be seen, the SD of the alternatives A1, A2 results are shown in Table 14. As can be seen in this table, in
and A4 are less than 0.5, and A3 and A5 have values more than all sets of criteria weights except for Set 4 and Set 14, the
0.5. Therefore, we can say that the ranks of A1, A2 and A4 have a ranking result of the proposed method is confirmed by at
good stability. However, A3 and A5 should be assessed more least one method. Moreover, in the cases of Set 4 and Set 14,
carefully, if we want to choose one of them. This fact is also can the differences between the results of the proposed method
be concluded from Fig. 6 that shows the distribution of the and the other methods are negligible. Therefore, it can be
alternatives in different ranks of the analysis. According to this concluded that the results of the proposed approach are
figure, the most possible ranking of alternatives is valid and relatively consistent with the results of the other
A1 A2 A3 A5 A4. It can be seen that the places of A3 methods.

Table 5 – Performance values of alternatives on all criteria by each decision-maker.

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35
D1 A1 MH VL H MH M VH H MH H MH ML H M VH M
A2 H ML VH H ML MH MH MH H M L MH ML VL MH
A3 VH H VL VH VH H ML MH M ML M VH H L H
A4 H M ML L H L M VH ML MH M VH VH VH H
A5 M MH VH VL MH ML H M MH M ML M H M ML

D2 A1 H L H H MH H VH M VH H ML H MH H ML
A2 VH L VH VH L M H MH MH M M H L L M
A3 VH VH L H MH VH M H M M MH VH MH VL H
A4 MH MH ML L MH L MH H L H M H VH H MH
A5 M M H VL H M VH M H MH L ML H MH L

D3 A1 H ML MH M MH H H MH VH H L MH H VH M
A2 MH M H MH ML MH M MH MH ML ML H ML VL M
A3 H MH L H M VH M H ML M M VH H ML MH
A4 VH MH VL VL VH VL M VH VL MH MH H H VH M
A5 MH M VH ML H ML VH M H M ML ML MH M L

Table 6 – The elements of the average decision matrix and the average solution.


A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 fvj
AV a

C11 (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.7,0.867,0.967) (0.833,0.967,1) (0.7,0.867,0.967) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.647,0.82,0.933)

C12 (0.033,0.133,0.3) (0.133,0.3,0.5) (0.7,0.867,0.967) (0.433,0.633,0.833) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.333,0.5,0.673)
C13 (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.833,0.967,1) (0,0.067,0.233) (0.067,0.2,0.367) (0.833,0.967,1) (0.473,0.607,0.713)
C14 (0.5,0.7,0.867) (0.7,0.867,0.967) (0.767,0.933,1) (0,0.067,0.233) (0.033,0.1,0.233) (0.4,0.533,0.66)
C15 (0.433,0.633,0.833) (0.067,0.233,0.433) (0.567,0.733,0.867) (0.7,0.867,0.967) (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.48,0.66,0.813)
C21 (0.767,0.933,1) (0.433,0.633,0.833) (0.833,0.967,1) (0,0.067,0.233) (0.167,0.367,0.567) (0.44,0.593,0.727)
C22 (0.767,0.933,1) (0.5,0.7,0.867) (0.233,0.433,0.633) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.833,0.967,1) (0.54,0.72,0.853)
C23 (0.433,0.633,0.833) (0.5,0.7,0.9) (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.833,0.967,1) (0.3,0.5,0.7) (0.54,0.727,0.88)
C24 (0.833,0.967,1) (0.567,0.767,0.933) (0.233,0.433,0.633) (0.033,0.133,0.3) (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.46,0.627,0.767)
C25 (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.233,0.433,0.633) (0.233,0.433,0.633) (0.567,0.767,0.933) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.407,0.607,0.787)
C31 (0.067,0.233,0.433) (0.133,0.3,0.5) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.067,0.233,0.433) (0.2,0.38,0.58)
C32 (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.9,1,1) (0.767,0.933,1) (0.167,0.367,0.567) (0.62,0.793,0.9)
C33 (0.5,0.7,0.867) (0.067,0.233,0.433) (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.833,0.967,1) (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.533,0.713,0.847)
C34 (0.833,0.967,1) (0,0.033,0.167) (0.033,0.133,0.3) (0.833,0.967,1) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.413,0.533,0.647)
C35 (0.233,0.433,0.633) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.5,0.7,0.867) (0.033,0.167,0.367) (0.353,0.54,0.72)
44 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49

Table 7 – The positive distances from the average solution (PDA matrix).
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
C11 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.15,0.317,0.708)
C12 (0.066,0.73,1.274) (
0.332,0.398,1.075) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0)
C13 (
0.134,0.379,0.825) (0.201,0.602,0.881) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.201,0.602,0.881)
C14 (
0.301,0.314,0.879) (0.075,0.628,1.067) (0.201,0.753,1.13) (0,0,0) (0,0,0)
C15 (
0.543,0.041,0.584) (0.072,0.655,1.147) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0)
C21 (0.068,0.58,0.955) (
0.5,0.068,0.67) (0.182,0.636,0.955) (0,0,0) (0,0,0)
C22 (
0.123,0.303,0.653) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.028,0.35,0.653)
C23 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.345,0.149,0.596) (
0.065,0.335,0.643) (0,0,0)
C24 (0.108,0.55,0.874) (
0.324,0.227,0.766) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.216,0.335,0.82)
C25 (0,0,0) (
0.378,0.289,0.922) (
0.378,0.289,0.922) (0,0,0) (
0.6,0.067,0.7)
C31 (
0.603,0.379,1.328) (
0.776,0.207,1.155) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.603,0.379,1.328)
C32 (
0.346,0.052,0.45) (
0.346,0.052,0.45) (0,0.268,0.493) (
0.173,0.182,0.493) (0,0,0)
C33 (
0.478,0.019,0.497) (0.143,0.688,1.118) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0)
C34 (0.351,0.816,1.105) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.351,0.816,1.105) (
0.527,0.063,0.665)
C35 (0,0,0) (
0.657,0.05,0.769) (
0.161,0.545,1.14) (
0.409,0.298,0.955) (0,0,0)

Table 8 – The negative distances from the average solution (NDA matrix).
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
C11 (
0.375,0.017,0.4) (
0.292,0.058,0.4) (
0.125,0.183,0.442) (
0.292,0.058,0.4) (0,0,0)
C12 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.053,0.73,1.261) (
0.478,0.265,0.996) (
0.611,0.133,0.863)
C13 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.401,0.903,1.193) (0.178,0.68,1.082) (0,0,0)
C14 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.314,0.879,1.243) (0.314,0.816,1.18)
C15 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.379,0.113,0.594) (
0.174,0.317,0.747) (
0.276,0.266,0.747)
C21 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.352,0.898,1.239) (
0.216,0.386,0.955)
C22 (0,0,0) (
0.464,0.028,0.502) (
0.132,0.407,0.88) (
0.322,0.218,0.691) (0,0,0)
C23 (
0.41,0.13,0.624) (
0.503,0.037,0.531) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.224,0.317,0.811)
C24 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.281,0.313,0.863) (0.259,0.799,1.187) (0,0,0)
C25 (
0.256,0.378,0.933) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.367,0.267,0.878) (0,0,0)
C31 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.552,0.483,1.466) (
0.552,0.483,1.466) (0,0,0)
C32 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.069,0.553,0.951)
C33 (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.306,0.172,0.621) (
0.019,0.363,0.669) (
0.306,0.172,0.621)
C34 (0,0,0) (0.464,0.941,1.218) (0.213,0.753,1.155) (0,0,0) (0,0,0)
C35 (
0.521,0.198,0.905) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (
0.025,0.694,1.277)

Table 9 – The fuzzy objective weights and the combined weights.

 

Criteria Sub-criteria ~ oj
Fuzzy objective weights w ~j
Combined weights w

C1 C11 (0.064,0.069,0.079) (0.062,0.066,0.074)

C12 (0.048,0.05,0.053) (0.047,0.051,0.055)
C13 (0.063,0.065,0.068) (0.057,0.061,0.065)
C14 (0.065,0.067,0.069) (0.046,0.049,0.053)
C15 (0.048,0.05,0.052) (0.038,0.042,0.045)

C2 C21 (0.055,0.06,0.066) (0.04,0.045,0.05)

C22 (0.062,0.066,0.067) (0.053,0.056,0.06)
C23 (0.076,0.081,0.084) (0.052,0.057,0.061)
C24 (0.051,0.052,0.055) (0.035,0.038,0.041)
C25 (0.076,0.08,0.082) (0.047,0.051,0.055)

C3 C31 (0.067,0.07,0.071) (0.052,0.056,0.06)

C32 (0.068,0.071,0.074) (0.044,0.048,0.052)
C33 (0.045,0.048,0.052) (0.033,0.037,0.041)
C34 (0.092,0.095,0.099) (0.053,0.057,0.062)
C35 (0.072,0.075,0.079) (0.052,0.057,0.061)

Table 10 – The weighted sum of distances, the normalized values and the appraisal scores.


f
spi sf
ni g
n spi ng
sni fsi
a k f
asi
A1 (
0.102,0.212,0.512) (
0.099,0.039,0.174) (
0.492,1.023,2.469) (0.294,0.842,1.399) (
0.099,0.932,1.934) 0.923
A2 (
0.16,0.183,0.527) (
0.055,0.062,0.168) (
0.772,0.884,2.54) (0.322,0.751,1.223) (
0.225,0.817,1.882) 0.825
A3 (
0.035,0.132,0.29) (
0.055,0.22,0.48) (
0.17,0.637,1.398) (
0.945,0.108,1.223) (
0.557,0.373,1.311) 0.375
A4 (
0.019,0.091,0.192) (
0.082,0.252,0.571) (
0.092,0.44,0.923) (
1.313,
0.018,1.331) (
0.702,0.211,1.127) 0.212
A5 (
0.112,0.118,0.342) (
0.068,0.165,0.394) (
0.541,0.57,1.648) (
0.597,0.332,1.274) (
0.569,0.451,1.461) 0.447
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 45

Table 11 – The pattern for generating weights for sensitivity analysis.

Set no. w1 w2 w3  wm
2 wm
1 wm
1 1
s
2
s
3
s  m
2
s
m
1
s
m
s
2 2
s
3
s
4
s  m
1
s
m
s
1
s
3 3 4 5
 m 1 2
.. .s
.. .s
.. .s
.. .s
.. .s
.. .s
..
. 
m m
s
1
s
2
s  m
3
s
m
2
s
m
1
s

Table 12 – The generated weights for sensitivity analysis.

Set no. C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35
1 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125
2 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008
3 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017
4 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025
5 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033
6 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042
7 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050
8 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058
9 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067
10 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075
11 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083
12 0.100 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092
13 0.108 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100
14 0.117 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108
15 0.125 0.008 0.017 0.025 0.033 0.042 0.050 0.058 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.117

decision matrix, contains a type of intrinsic information

5. Discussion
In the process of decision-making with multiple criteria, we
are usually confronted with the uncertainty of information
about the criteria and alternatives of problem. The fuzzy set
theory is a common tool to deal with this uncertainty.
Weighting the criteria of an MCDM problem in the fuzzy
environment is one of the important issues of the decision-
making process. The decision-makers usually have some
preferences on the criteria that should be elicited. Also,
evaluation of alternatives on these criteria, which leads to the
(contrast intensity and conflict of criteria) that should be
considered. The decision-makers' preferences and the intrin-
sic information of decision matrix result the subjective and
objective weights of criteria, respectively. In the case study of
this research, three main criteria (socio-economic, engineering
and environmental) with fifteen sub-criteria were chosen and
defined by decision-makers for evaluation of five excavators in
the fuzzy environment. We have elicited the preferences of the
decision-makers and determined the subjective weights by the
extended fuzzy SWARA method which has been developed in
this paper. The number of required comparisons in the
SWARA method is significantly lower than the AHP method,
which makes it more attractive to use. An extended fuzzy
CRITIC method has also been proposed in this research. After
constructing the average decision matrix, the extended fuzzy
CRITIC method has been applied to calculate the objective

Fig. 5 – Graphical view of the generated weights. Fig. 6 – Distribution of the alternatives in different ranks.
46 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49

Table 13 – Results of the sensitivity analysis.

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5


Set 1 fsi
k a 0.886 0.741 0.442 0.333 0.296
Rank 1 2 3 4 5


Set 2 fsi
k a 0.931 0.746 0.325 0.252 0.444
Rank 1 2 4 5 3


Set 3 fsi
k a 0.830 0.983 0.500 0.105 0.461
Rank 2 1 3 5 4


Set 4 fsi
k a 0.923 0.914 0.552 0.141 0.509
Rank 1 2 3 5 4


Set 5 fsi
k a 0.924 0.909 0.488 0.112 0.591
Rank 1 2 4 5 3


Set 6 fsi
k a 0.913 0.933 0.565 0.143 0.505
Rank 2 1 3 5 4


Set 7 fsi
k a 0.965 0.862 0.465 0.149 0.463
Rank 1 2 3 5 4


Set 8 fsi
k a 0.951 0.898 0.497 0.192 0.364
Rank 1 2 3 5 4


Set 9 fsi
k a 0.968 0.899 0.461 0.126 0.423
Rank 1 2 3 5 4


Set 10 fsi
k a 0.930 0.918 0.512 0.139 0.349
Rank 1 2 3 5 4


Set 11 fsi
k a 0.831 0.890 0.295 0.150 0.329
Rank 2 1 4 5 3


Set 12 fsi
k a 0.938 0.877 0.349 0.197 0.402
Rank 1 2 4 5 3


Set 13 fsi
k a 0.932 0.799 0.204 0.330 0.552
Rank 1 2 5 4 3


Set 14 fsi
k a 0.903 0.694 0.252 0.332 0.349
Rank 1 2 5 4 3


Set 15 fsi
k a 0.878 0.709 0.412 0.354 0.372
Rank 1 2 3 5 4

SD of ranks 0.414 0.414 0.743 0.414 0.617

weights. To make the decision-making process more efficient,
we have combined these weights. This combination ensure that
we have used both the information of the decision-makers'
preferences and information exists in the decision matrix.
According to the fuzzy subjective weights obtained by SWARA,
C11 (ownership cost), C22 (equipment efficiency) and C31
(greenhouse gas emissions) have been the most important
sub-criteria of the socio-economic, engineering and environ-
mental criteria. However, the criteria C14 (availability of local
skilled operator), C23 (equipment reliability) and C34 (vibration
and noise control) have greater objective weights. The combi-
nation of the subjective and objective weights have resulted
more justified weights for the criteria. By using these combined
weights and the fuzzy EDAS method, we have developed a
hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to determine the final rank of
alternatives. As previously mentioned, the company wants to
choose two excavators from the five alternatives. The results
show that A1 and A2 are the best choices for the company. The
sensitivity analysis, which has been performed by varying the
criteria weights, confirmed the desirability of these alternatives.
Also, the results obtained by the WASPAS, COPRAS, TOPSIS and
VIKOR methods showed that A1 and A2 are the most desirable
alternatives in different sets. Comparing the results of the
proposed method with the other methods demonstrates that
our results are valid and reliable.
In this research, we have tried to propose a new approach
which can be applied to many practical MCDM problems in
civil engineering. In fact, any company or organization which
has the basic conditions of the proposed approach can use it to
solve its problem. Although we used the proposed approach in
the construction industry, it is also applicable in the other
industries.
Future research can develop the proposed approach using
the other types of fuzzy sets like intuitionistic fuzzy sets,
hesitant fuzzy sets and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Moreover,
integrating some other methods such as IDOCRIW (Integrated
Determination of Objective CRIteria Weights), which was
introduced by Zavadskas and Podvezko [46] to determine
objective weights of criteria, into the proposed approach can
be examined in future research.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49 47

Table 14 – Ranking results using different methods and sets.

Set no. WASPAS COPRAS TOPSIS VIKOR Proposed Set no. WASPAS COPRAS TOPSIS VIKOR Proposed
approach approach
1 A1 1 2 1 1 1 9 A1 1 2 1 2 1
A2 2 1 3 2 2 A2 2 1 2 1 2
A3 3 3 4 3 3 A3 3 3 3 4 3
A4 4 4 2 4 4 A4 5 5 5 5 5
A5 5 5 5 5 5 A5 4 4 4 3 4

2 A1 1 1 1 1 1 10 A1 1 2 1 2 1
A2 2 2 2 2 2 A2 2 1 2 1 2
A3 4 4 5 4 4 A3 3 3 3 3 3
A4 5 5 4 5 5 A4 5 5 5 5 5
A5 3 3 3 3 3 A5 4 4 4 4 4

3 A1 2 2 2 2 2 11 A1 2 2 2 2 2
A2 1 1 1 1 1 A2 1 1 1 1 1
A3 3 3 3 3 3 A3 4 3 3 3 4
A4 5 5 5 5 5 A4 5 5 5 5 5
A5 4 4 4 4 4 A5 3 4 4 4 3

4 A1 2 2 2 2 1 12 A1 1 1 1 1 1
A2 1 1 1 1 2 A2 2 2 2 2 2
A3 3 3 3 3 3 A3 4 4 3 4 4
A4 5 5 5 5 5 A4 5 5 5 5 5
A5 4 4 4 4 4 A5 3 3 4 3 3

5 A1 1 2 2 3 1 13 A1 1 1 1 1 1
A2 2 1 1 1 2 A2 2 2 2 2 2
A3 4 4 4 4 4 A3 5 5 5 5 5
A4 5 5 5 5 5 A4 4 4 4 4 4
A5 3 3 3 2 3 A5 3 3 3 3 3

6 A1 2 2 2 3 2 14 A1 1 1 1 1 1
A2 1 1 1 1 1 A2 2 2 2 2 2
A3 3 3 3 2 3 A3 4 5 5 5 5
A4 5 5 5 5 5 A4 5 3 3 3 4
A5 4 4 4 4 4 A5 3 4 4 4 3

7 A1 1 1 1 2 1 15 A1 1 1 1 1 1
A2 2 2 2 1 2 A2 2 2 3 2 2
A3 4 3 3 3 3 A3 3 3 4 5 3
A4 5 5 5 5 5 A4 5 4 2 3 5
A5 3 4 4 4 4 A5 4 5 5 4 4

8 A1 1 2 1 2 1
A2 2 1 2 1 2
A3 3 3 3 3 3
A4 5 5 5 4 5
A5 4 4 4 5 4

we have proposed a framework to evaluate alternatives using

6. Conclusion
Using appropriate construction equipment is one of the
important factors to achieve the sustainable construction.
Hence we should use suitable methods that are able to
evaluate construction equipment efficiently. In this study, we
have proposed a new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for this
evaluation process. Firstly we have extended the classical
SWARA and CRITIC methods for fuzzy environment. Then the
extended SWARA and CRITIC methods have been integrated
with the fuzzy EDAS methods to propose a new approach. In
the proposed approach, the fuzzy SWARA is used to determine
the subjective criteria weights, which is based on the
preferences of decision-makers, and the fuzzy CRITIC method
is utilized for calculation of the objective weights of criteria,
which is based on the information of the decision matrix. Then
the combination of the subjective and objective weights and
the fuzzy EDAS method. To illustrate the procedure of the
proposed hybrid approach, we applied it to a case study of
construction equipment evaluation with consideration of
sustainability criteria. A sensitivity analysis and a comparison
have also been performed to demonstrate the stability and
validity of the results. According to the performed analyses,
the proposed MCDM approach is efficient, and the ranking
results are relatively stable.
references
[1] D.A. Day, N.B.H. Benjamin, Construction Equipment Guide,
Wiley, 1991.
48 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49
[2] P. Lewis, W. Rasdorf, H.C. Frey, S.-H. Pang, K. Kim,
Requirements and incentives for reducing construction
vehicle emissions and comparison of nonroad diesel engine
emissions sata sources, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 135 (5) (2009) 341–351.
[3] S. El Haggar, Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste
Management: Cradle-to-cradle for Sustainable Development,
Academic Press, 2010.
[4] W.M. Adams, The future of sustainability: re-thinking
environment and development in the twenty-first century,
Report of the IUCN renowned thinkers meeting, 2006.
[5] S. Goodhew, Sustainable Construction Processes: A Resource
Text, John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
[6] H. Yan, Q. Shen, L.C.H. Fan, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Greenhouse
gas emissions in building construction: a case study of One
Peking in Hong Kong, Building and Environment 45 (4) (2010)
949–955.
[7] H. Zhao, N. Li, Risk evaluation of a UHV power transmission
construction project based on a cloud model and FCE method
for sustainability, Sustainability 7 (3) (2015) 2885–2914.
[8] A. Passer, H. Kreiner, P. Maydl, Assessment of the
environmental performance of buildings: a critical
evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment
on residential buildings, International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 17 (9) (2012) 1116–1130.
[9] F. Giustozzi, G.W. Flintsch, M. Crispino, Environmental
impact analysis of low-carbon road-foundation layers,
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 9 (1)
(2015) 73–79.
[10] A. del Caño, M. Pilar de la Cruz, D. Gómez, M. Pérez, Fuzzy
method for analysing uncertainty in the sustainable design
of concrete structures, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 22 (7) (2016) 924–935.
[11] V. Yepes, T. García-Segura, J.M. Moreno-Jiménez, A cognitive
approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC
structural problems, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 15 (4) (2015) 1024–1036.
[12] M.S. Ali, M.S. Aslam, M.S. Mirza, A sustainability assessment
framework for bridges – a case study: Victoria and Champlain
Bridges, Montreal, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
12 (11) (2016) 1381–1394.
[13] J. Curiel-Esparza, J. Canto-Perello, Selecting utilities
placement techniques in urban underground engineering,
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 13 (2) (2013)
276–285.
[14] M.H. Rafiei, H. Adeli, Sustainability in highrise building
design and construction, The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings 25 (13) (2016) 643–658.
[15] M. Goldenberg, A. Shapira, Systematic evaluation of
construction equipment alternatives: case study, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 133 (1) (2007) 72–
85.
[16] K. Schabowicz, B. Hoła, Application of artificial neural
networks in predicting earthmoving machinery
effectiveness ratios, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 8 (4) (2008) 73–84.
[17] A. Jrade, N. Markiz, A Decision-Support Model Utilizing a
Linear Cost Optimization Approach for Heavy Equipment
Selection, Construction Research Congress, 2012, pp. 100–109.
[18] M.V.S. Phogat, A.P. Singh, Selection of equipment for
construction of a hilly road using multi criteria approach,
Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 104 (2013) 282–291.
[19] S. Hasan, A. Bouferguene, M. Al-Hussein, P. Gillis, A. Telyas,
Productivity and CO2 emission analysis for tower crane
utilization on high-rise building projects, Automation in
Construction 31 (2013) 255–264.
[20] B. Heidari, L.C. Marr, Real-time emissions from construction
equipment compared with model predictions, Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2) (2015) 115–125.
[21] B.-S. Kim, Y.-W. Kim, Configuration of earthwork equipment
considering environmental impacts, cost and schedule,
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 22 (1) (2016)
73–85.
[22] M. Waris, M. Shahir Liew, M.F. Khamidi, A. Idrus, Criteria for
the selection of sustainable onsite construction equipment,
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 3 (1)
(2014) 96–110.
[23] D. Jato-Espino, E. Castillo-Lopez, J. Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.C.
Canteras-Jordana, A review of application of multi-criteria
decision making methods in construction, Automation in
Construction 45 (2014) 151–162.
[24] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338–
353.
[25] J. Antucheviciene, Z. Kala, M. Marzouk, E.R. Vaidogas, Solving
civil engineering problems by means of fuzzy and stochastic
MCDM methods: current state and future research,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1155/2015/362579, Article ID 362579.
[26] F. Aliakbari Nouri, S. Khalili Esbouei, J. Antucheviciene, A
hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy ANP and fuzzy
TOPSIS for technology selection, Informatica 26 (3) (2015)
369–388.
[27] C.-N. Liao, Y.-K. Fu, L.-C. Wu, Integrated FAHP, ARAS-F and
MSGP methods for green supplier evaluation and selection,
Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22 (5)
(2016) 651–669.
[28] P. Jaskowski, S. Biruk, R. Bucon, Assessing contractor
selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method
application in group decision environment, Automation in
Construction 19 (2) (2010) 120–126.
[29] M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, Developing an MCDM method for
robot selection with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 37 (2016) 221–232.
[30] S. Ebrahimnejad, H. Hashemi, S. Mousavi, B. Vahdani, A new
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy model to group decision
making for the selection of outsourcing providers, Economic
Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and
Research 49 (2) (2015) 256–277.
[31] İ. Önden, A.Z. Acar, F. Eldemir, Evaluation of the logistics center
locations using a multi-criteria spatial approach, Transport
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1186113.
[32] A. Balin, H. Baraçli, A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
methodology based upon the interval type-2 fuzzy sets for
evaluating renewable energy alternatives in Turkey,
Technological and Economic Development of Economy
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1056276.
[33] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E.K. Zavadskas, Fuzzy multiple criteria
decision-making techniques and applications–Two decades
review from 1994 to 2014, Expert Systems with Applications
42 (8) (2015) 4126–4148.
[34] N.H. Zardari, K. Ahmed, S.M. Shirazi, Z.B. Yusop, Weighting
Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management, Springer
International Publishing, 2014.
[35] V. Keršuliene, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, Selection of rational
dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight
assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), Journal of Business
Economic and Management 11 (2) (2010) 243–258.
[36] D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas, L. Papayannakis, Determining
objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the critic
method, Computers & Operations Research 22 (7) (1995) 763–
770.
[37] M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, Z. Turskis,
Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of
evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS),
Informatica 26 (3) (2015) 435–451.
[38] M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, M. Amiri, Z.
Turskis, Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 32–49
decision-making: an application to supplier selection,
International Journal of Computers Communications &
Control 11 (3) (2016) 358–371.
[39] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy set theory, Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Computational Statistics 2 (3) (2010) 317–332.
[40] Y.-J. Wang, H.-S. Lee, Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-
criteria group decision-making, Computers & Mathematics
with Applications 53 (11) (2007) 1762–1772.
[41] S.-J. Chen, C.-L. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision
Making: Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin/
Heidelberg, 1992.
[42] Y.-M. Wang, J.-B. Yang, D.-L. Xu, K.-S. Chin, On the centroids
of fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (7) (2006) 919–
926.
49
[43] M. Ma, A. Kandel, M. Friedman, A new approach for
defuzzification, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 111 (3) (2000) 351–
356.
[44] C.-T. Chen, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-
making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
114 (1) (2000) 1–9.
[45] M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, M. Amiri, A.
Esmaeili, Multi-criteria evaluation of green suppliers using
an extended WASPAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets,
Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 213–229.
[46] E.K. Zavadskas, V. Podvezko, Integrated determination of
objective criteria weights in MCDM, International Journal of
Information Technology & Decision Making 15 (2016) 267–
283.