Asce - JPCF 2

Nonconformity Assessment in Building Construction
Projects: A Fuzzy Group Decision-Making Approach

Muhammad Saiful Islam 1; Md. Maksudul Islam 2; Shahidur Rahman Shihab 3;
Martin Skitmore 4; and Madhav P. Nepal, A.M.ASCE 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Saiful Islam on 11/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract: Construction nonconformity assessment of buildings is critical to ensure the anticipated quality and living safety for their future
occupants. Previous studies have paid less attention to identifying and analyzing building construction nonconformities (BCNs) in the design
and construction (D&C) phases. They considered expert judgments in nonconformity assessment, which are critiqued for human bias, un-
certainty, and imprecision. In a BCN assessment, previous studies also did not consider the specific time frame to detect construction non-
conformities. This study aims to prioritize nonconformities in the D&C phases, addressing the limitations of expert judgment by applying the
fuzzy group decision-making approach (FGDMA). The FGDMA computes the defuzzified scores of the nonconformities to prioritize and
identify critical nonconformities. The defuzzified scores are explained further by associating them with the corresponding fuzzy numbers to
address the limitations involved in expert judgments. The study also identifies the detection time of BCNs and analyzes 15 different Ban-
gladeshi project scenarios to understand their context better. The critical nonconformities identified include premature stressing on concrete,
inaccurate water-cement ratios, insufficient concrete compaction, lack of full-time site supervision, and the absence of stirrups in beam-
column joints. Critical nonconformities are mostly identified during construction, and residential, commercial, and multipurpose buildings,
regardless of ownership (i.e., public or private) and size, have experienced poor quality construction. This study will assist major stakeholders
(owner, contractor, consultant, and regulatory authorities) to fully understand the critical nonconformities in different building projects from
their preconstruction to construction phases for better quality assurance in providing a safe living and working environment for their future
occupants. DOI: 10.1061/JPCFEV.CFENG-4208. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Practical Applications: The study identifies critical nonconformities and their frequency, severity, and detection times in different con-
struction projects, including residential, commercial, and multipurpose buildings and mosques. It also studies 15 different project scenarios
for analyzing the nonconformities of government and privately funded/owned buildings. The most common nonconformities are premature
stressing on concrete (loading to concrete members before gaining their design strength), inaccurate water-cement ratios, insufficient concrete
compaction, and the absence of stirrups in beam-column joints. These nonconformities all occur due to lack of full-time site supervision and
poor workmanship during construction. The dominating detection time for identifying the critical nonconformities is “during construction.”
Thus, it is possible to control many by careful supervision and improved workmanship during construction. The project scenario analysis
shows that residential, commercial, and multipurpose buildings, regardless of ownership (i.e., public or private), experience poor quality
construction. These findings will assist stakeholders with different engagement levels in managing their roles in building projects to deliver a
better quality of construction, and hence a sustainable and safe living and working environment.
Author keywords: Building construction; Concrete; Construction quality; Fuzzy logic; Nonconformity.
1
Lecturer, School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland Introduction
Univ., 120 Spencer St., Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6414-1211. Email: m.islam3@ Construction nonconformity is a worldwide phenomenon, the se-
cqu.edu.au verity of which can range from simple nonstructural defects to the
2
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, unprecedented collapse of a massive building (Gurmu et al. 2021;
Shahjalal Univ. of Science and Technology, C-Building (Ground Floor), Islam et al. 2021a; Sommerville 2007). It broadly refers to a defec-
Sunamganj Rd., Sylhet 3114, Bangladesh. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
tive building product, work, or service, or simply a deviation from
-0002-3804-0505. Email: maksudcee023@gmail.com
3
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the stipulated quality of a work/product (Islam et al. 2021b;
Shahjalal Univ. of Science and Technology, C-Building (Ground Floor), Sommerville 2007). Previous studies have attempted to identify
Sunamganj Rd., Sylhet 3114, Bangladesh. Email: shihab.sust33@gmail.com the BCNs associated with finishing works such as plumbing, elec-
4
University Professorial Fellow, Faculty of Society and Design, Bond trical fittings, and nonstructural materials installed in roofs or fa-
Univ., 14 University Dr., Robina, Gold Coast, QLD 4226, Australia. ORCID: cades (Ahzahar et al. 2011; Forcada et al. 2016); handover
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7135-1201. Email: mskitmor@bond.edu.au (Jonsson and Gunnelin 2019); and post-handover and ser-
5
Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Built Environment, vice period defects (Forcada et al. 2014; Gurmu et al. 2021). Some
Queensland Univ. of Technology (QUT), 2 George St., Brisbane, QLD
studies focused on identifying BCNs (that originated in the de-
4000, Australia. Email: madhav.nepal@qut.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 27, 2022; approved on
sign and construction phases) in the handover or post-handover
September 26, 2022; published online on November 23, 2022. Discussion period, but did not study construction scenarios (Forcada et al.
period open until April 23, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted 2016; Macarulla et al. 2013; Oyewobi and Ogumsemi 2010;
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Sommerville 2007; Tayeh et al. 2020; Wasfy 2010). Moreover,
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828. studies in the context of South Asian countries are lacking, but are
© ASCE 04022075-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

particularly significant, as the region is rife with poor construction construction defects, nonconformities, and/or rework, as well as
practices and defective works; as such, it has witnessed their types, causation, costs, and effects on overall project perfor-
a series of building collapses, structural failures, and heavy loss mance. Thus, the present study defines all such terminologies as
of human lives (Islam et al. 2021a; Press 2020). It is critically nonconformities, including defects and rework causes, as few studies
important, therefore, that professionals and stakeholders involved use the term ‘nonconformity’ for construction quality assessment
in the building construction industry have a comprehensive grasp research. Accordingly, all relevant papers studied for defects, non-
of potential and critical nonconformities and are provided with a conformities, causes of reworks, and associated terms are considered
tool to support their decision-making to ensure the quality, for the identification of nonconformities in building construction
durability, and safety of a building is not compromised. projects. The following presents a brief overview of nonconformity
Previous studies of nonconformity or building defects are mainly studies contained in the literature.
based on case studies of inspection/engineering reports (Gurmu et al. Nonconformity study in Australia focuses on identifying build-
2021; Islam et al. 2021b; Paton-Cole and Aibinu 2021), builders’ ing defects and rework causes and their cost effects (Gurmu et al.
records (Forcada et al. 2013a, b), and field observations (Silvestre 2021; Love and Edwards 2004b; Paton-Cole and Aibinu 2021).
and De Brito 2011). The field observations or case studies were Two recent studies have investigated defects in the service periods
mainly limited to similar projects from a few (even one or two) build- of low-rise residential buildings based on defect claim reports sub-
ers or contractors, which only partly represent a country’s construc- mitted to the state government (Paton-Cole and Aibinu 2021) and
tion nonconformity scenarios. Moreover, project case-based studies engineering reports of some buildings (Gurmu et al. 2021). Recently,
depend on access to the site, or constructed property, builders’, or a literature review-based study discovered causes, effects, and mea-
government nonconformity databases. Consequently, some studies sures to manage construction rework (Love et al. 2022). The critical
were conducted using expert judgment (interview, group discussion, nonconformities identified in the service period of Australian build-
and structured or semi-structured survey) to classify (Macarulla et al. ing projects are severe cracks in various building elements (Gurmu
2013) and evaluate nonconformities in building projects (Jonsson et al. 2021; Paton-Cole and Aibinu 2021), slab subsidence, separa-
and Gunnelin 2019; Milion et al. 2017). The expert-judgment-based tion of wall plaster, etc. (Paton-Cole and Aibinu 2021). Love and
building nonconformity studies analyzed data qualitatively, using Edwards (2004a) identified that the root causes of building defects
such basic statistics as the mean, percentage, correlation, and testing originated in the construction phase based on the case study of two
hypothesis, or applying the relative importance index (RII) method real-life projects and concluded that poor workmanship, lack of
(de Wit 2014; Jonsson and Gunnelin 2019; Yoon et al. 2021). The focus on quality, and poor supervision and inspection were respon-
real challenge, however, is the lack of a robust methodology to ad- sible for building defects and rework.
dress the uncertainties, vagueness, and biases associated with the Some studies have conducted research into identifying construc-
expert judgment involved in ranking construction nonconformities. tion nonconformities encountered in such European countries as the
A fuzzy-based risk assessment model is best suited to address this Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Spain, collecting building defect
issue (Elbarkouky et al. 2016; Islam et al. 2019a; Novák 2006). data using focus group discussions, semi-structured or structured
However, it has yet to be applied to the assessment of nonconform- interviews (Chiel 2014; Jingmond and Ågren 2015), structured sur-
ities of building projects. Furthermore, the literature is silent on the veys (Jonsson and Gunnelin 2019), and builders’ databases (Forcada
specific time frame at which a nonconformity is detected (herein- et al. 2013a, b, 2014). The most common construction noncon-
after referred as the ‘detection time’). The nonconformity detection formities in Spanish buildings are the incorrect positioning of the
time is one of the critical parameters for the early detection of qual- foundation frame, errors in installation of beams, surface defects
ity defects in building construction projects (Ismail et al. 2015; (honeycombs in concrete, bumps, dips, etc.) and functionality
Sommerville 2007). defects in some building elements (Forcada et al. 2013b). These
In this paper, a robust fuzzy-based nonconformity assessment nonconformities are related to poor workmanship, construction
model is proposed and applied to identify and prioritize critical non- errors, and omissions (Forcada et al. 2013a). Chiel’s (2014) study,
conformities in the design and construction phases of building proj- on the other hand, did not identify nonconformities, but developed a
ects. It also identifies the dominating detection time of building procedure to define nonconformities in term of risk or nonrisk and
construction nonconformities. How nonconformities arise with vary- demonstrated the model in testing 100 nonconformities from two
ing characteristics of a building project is quantitatively analyzed, real-life projects. Jingmond and Ågren’s (2015) study focused on
including its ownership profile, building usage, and size (floor identifying the causes of defects, which included inaccurate work
areas and story heights). The nonconformities in different construc- performance, knowledge gap, and poor project management.
tion phases are evaluated based on expert judgments, the limitations Sommerville’s (2007) study found that new private house-
of which are handled by a fuzzy group decision-making approach buildings in the UK incur the highest rework costs due to non-
(Islam et al. 2019a). conforming work, with the design phase producing almost 50%
The remainder of this paper presents previous building construc- of nonconformities, followed by construction work (40%). The
tion nonconformity studies, research methodologies, results, and most frequent design-related nonconformities were the lack of
discussions of the critical nonconformities associated with various detailed drawings, inadequate specifications, and noncompliance
project characteristics. The “Conclusion” section summarizes the with construction legislation. This was a qualitative study based on
work, identifies its limitations, and makes recommendations to in- a literature review and findings from the UK Building Research
dustry professionals controlling construction nonconformities and Establishment (BRE).
for further study. Two Nigerian studies represent the construction quality of
African building projects. One was a qualitative study relying on
published literature (including electronic and print media) concern-
Overview of Nonconformity Studies ing the causes of building collapses (Hamma-Adama et al. 2020),
with the other conducting a structured survey to prioritize defects
Construction nonconformities have been studied with different using the RII method (Waziri 2016). The primary causes of building
terms and methods, considering varying projects in different parts collapses were closely linked to such construction defects as poor
of the world. For example, previous studies have focused on finding quality materials used for construction, poor workmanship, faulty

design, and inadequate supervision (Hamma-Adama et al. 2020; countries, where poor workmanship, quality of materials, severe lack
Waziri 2016). In the Arab region, a case study of a high-rise building of the construction workers’ knowledge and skills, and inadequate
in Saudi Arabia found many nonconforming finishing works in supervision and inspection (Islam et al. 2021b) are potential causes
electrical wiring, glasswork, plumbing, false ceiling materials, and of recent building collapses (Omondi 2019). A few studies collected
painting (Wasfy 2010). The construction nonconformities of residen- data using questionnaire surveys or interviews and were analyzed by
tial building projects in the Gaza Strip were studied using a struc- descriptive statistics or the RII method (Tayeh et al. 2020; Waziri
tured questionnaire survey of 133 engineers and the factors ranked 2016; Yoon et al. 2021). Since expert-judgment-based data is subject
by the RII method (Tayeh et al. 2020), the most common being poor to uncertainty, vagueness, and bias (Elbarkouky et al. 2016; Islam
quality materials used for construction, construction equipment and et al. 2019a; Novák 2006), a fuzzy-logic-based model such as the
lack of inspection or supervision, inadequate soil compaction, align- fuzzy group decision-making approach (FGDMA) can be potentially
ment of structural elements, insufficient concrete cover, etc. used to rank and analyze the critical nonconformities in building
There have been several studies of Asian countries. For exam- construction projects (Islam et al. 2019a).
ple, Pheng and Wee (2001) and Liu (2003) applied the ISO 9000
quality management framework to investigate the causes of defects

in Singapore and Hong Kong, finding the most common defects to Research Method
be design faults, poor workmanship, and defective materials used
The research method consisted of a literature review to find the
for construction. Three different studies identified Korean building
research gaps, listing potential nonconformities in the project plan-
construction defects in different time-phases (Lee et al. 2020; Seo
ning to construction phases, selecting a suitable data collection tool,
and Kang 2009; Yoon et al. 2021). For instance, Seo and Kang
and a method for data analysis following Islam et al. (2019a) and
(2009) identified finishing defects in high-rise residential buildings
Li and Wang (2016). A panel of experts was convened and semi-
during their service periods from the occupants’ viewpoint. Yoon
structured interviews were conducted to finalize the nonconform-
et al. (2021) studied household reports and expert survey data to
ities relevant to Bangladeshi building construction projects. Based
analyze defects in the finishing work of some apartment buildings.
on the final list of nonconformities, a structured questionnaire was
The former study identified most of the defects as being associated
developed and experts’ judgments were elicited in evaluating build-
with in-built furniture, electronics, painting, and masonry work,
ing construction nonconformities. The fuzzy group decision-making
while the latter found the highest frequency of defects in the open-
approach (Islam et al. 2019a) was adopted for analyzing these
ing and closing of doors and windows, followed by furnishing,
and identifying the critical building construction nonconformities.
tiling, and painting. Some Malaysian studies represent construc-
The importance of nonconformities and their variations for differ-
tion quality and causes of nonconforming work in Southeast Asia. ent project variables are also analyzed, justifying their relationships
Ahzahar et al. (2011), for instance, investigated the causes of build- in varying project scenarios. The following subsections present the
ing failures and associated construction nonconformities through a background of selecting FGDMA, its step-by-step procedure, and
structured interview with 40 experts (contractors and engineers), details of the expert judgment elicitation.
using the relative index method for ranking. Mohd-Noor et al.
(2016) studied 4 mosques and identified 2,276 defects, and Ismail
et al. (2015) inspected 72 houses based on the condition survey Fuzzy Group Decision-Making Approach
protocol system. The most common nonconformities found in the Assessing the critical nonconformities of any project depends
construction phase were honeycombing on the concrete surface, the mostly on expert judgment where there is a lack of data records,
use of corroded steel, cracks in floors and beams, and foundation poor accuracy, or limited access to data sets. Moreover, handling
failure. The nonconformities at the handover period were defects in the expert evaluations of nonconformities and associated subjective
wall skirtings, alignment of doors and windows, hollowness in wall biases and the suitability of the chosen model/method is also criti-
tiles, and uneven wall painting. The defects were mostly due to cal. Previous expert judgment–based nonconformity studies mostly
poor workmanship. used a simple discrete Likert type scale (0, 1, 2, : : : .) for the non-
However, only Islam et al.’s (2021b) study of Bangladeshi build- conformities assessment, and analyzed data using the averaging
ing projects represents the South Asian construction industry. Based technique or the most frequently used RII method (Heravi and
on focus group discussions followed by three qualitative case stud- Jafari 2014; Tayeh et al. 2020). Those methods have limitations
ies, the most common construction of nonconformities were found in addressing the uncertainty, subjectivity, and biases involved.
to be inadequate soil investigation, substandard material quality, Instead, the fuzzy method evaluates a risk (nonconformity in this
poor concrete quality, structural misalignments, insufficient con- paper) linguistically and transfers it to a fuzzy triangular or trap-
crete cover, insufficient concrete curing, imperfect formwork, and ezoidal number or range instead of a crisp value (Islam et al. 2019a;
premature formwork removal. Nguyen and Robinson Fayek 2022). The decision-maker’s risk at-
In summary, the most common causes of building construction titude (seeker, neutral, or averse) and corresponding project con-
nonconformities found in previous studies are poor workmanship, texts, along with the fuzzy risk assessment result, assists them to
inadequate inspection or poor site management, and poor quality make an informed decision in handling those risks. However, con-
materials used for construction identified in the construction period, ventional fuzzy logic has a limitation in aggregating expert judg-
handover, and service period of a building. Few studies investigated ments for risk ranking (Novák 2006; Xu et al. 2010). Moreover, the
nonconformities in the preconstruction and construction phases, and use of its if-then rules for analyzing the relationships between the
the majority studied the handover period, finding nonconformities input variables (likelihood of occurrence and severity of a risk) to
in finishing works but originating in the construction phase. None measure output (risk level) is tedious and further subjective, and
paid attention to nonconformity detection time, which can be de- does not provide numerical values to prioritize risks (Islam et al.
fined as a specific time frame in which a particular nonconformity 2019a; Jung et al. 2016). These limitations are addressed in
was noticed, as the studies were conducted after the construction Islam et al.’s (2019a) fuzzy group decision-making approach. In
phase ended. The above discussion also pinpoints the research gap FGDMA, a group of experts evaluate the likelihood of occurrence
as the lack of a quantitative assessment of critical construction non- and severity of nonconformities. The model applies some equations
conformities in the densely populated South Asian developing [Eqs. (1)–(8)] to aggregate experts’ judgments considering their

2. Using the FTN, a fuzzy decision matrix (FDM) for the likeli-
None VL L M H VH EH hood of occurrence (LO) or severity level of individual non-
1.0 Legend:
VL = Very low
conformity (nc) in a project phase (p) is formed by
Degree of membership (µ)
L = Low 2 3
M = Medium l1 m1 u1
6 . . 7
. . ... 7
H = High
ðFDM nc 6 .
LO=SL Þp ¼ 4 . ð1Þ
VH = Very high
EH = Extremely high 5
ln mn un
where l, m, and u = low, medium, and upper values of likelihood
0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 of consequence of a nonconformity, respectively, and n = num-
Fuzzy triangular number
ber of participating experts in the nonconformity evaluation.
Fig. 1. Triangular fuzzy membership functions. 3. The judgment ability of experts and the reliability of their judg-
ments can vary for several reasons in a particular context, and
thus need to be weighted accordingly. This a function of their

professional position (PP), working experience (EP), experience
professional competency weights (Kabir et al. 2016) and finds de-
gained working on other projects (EO), and academic qualifica-
fuzzified scores for nonconformities. Then, the defuzzified scores
tions (AQ) (Jung et al. 2015). The weighted judgment of each
are explained based on Fig. 1 (triangular membership functions of
expert is then incorporated into the nonconformity assessment
different linguistic variables) and Table 1 (description of the lin-
to increase decision reliability (Kabir et al. 2016). The weight
guistic variables) to find importance levels (likelihood of occur-
(wInd
i ) is given by (Aboshady et al. 2013)
rence, severity, and importance) of nonconformities and make
inference considering specific project’s context. wInd
i ¼ ðwpp þ wEP þ wEO þ wAQ Þi ð2Þ
Accordingly, this study adopts Islam et al.’s (2019a) FGDMA,
which assesses nonconformity using the likelihood of occurrence where wPP , wEP , wEO , and wAQ = each expert’s weights for PP,
and severity of each nonconformity, with its detection time (i.e., be- EP, EO, and AQ, respectively. To evaluate the experts’ weights,
fore, during, or after construction) in particular work packages each criterion (i.e.wPP , wEP , wEO , or wAQ ) is assumed equal. The
(Abdelgawad and Fayek 2010; Mohammadi and Tavakolan 2013). global weight of an expert ðwgi Þ is calculated by (Ameyaw et al.
The experts evaluate the likelihood of occurrence and severity 2015)
of each nonconformity based on the linguistic variables “none” to
“extreme” (Li and Wang 2016). The linguistic variables are then wInd X
n
transferred to fuzzy triangular numbers following Islam et al. wgi ¼ Pn i Ind ; wgi ¼ 1 ð3Þ
i¼1 wi i¼1
(2019a) and Li and Wang (2016).
Fig. 1 shows triangular fuzzy membership functions for differ- It is noted that the sum of all experts’ global weights must
ent assessment levels (very low to extremely high). The triangular equal unity, satisfying the principle of the aggregated fuzzy
fuzzy membership function is chosen for its computational simplic- score (Jung et al. 2015).
ity (geometrical triangular shape) and accommodating three-point 4. The FDM for individual nonconformity (nc) of a project phase
estimate (pessimistic, most likely, and optimistic values), and is (p) is transformed into a weighted FDM (WFDM) by
commonly used in similar risk and uncertainty studies (Chileshe g
and Dzisi 2012; Elbarkouky et al. 2016; Gerami Seresht and Fayek ðWFDM nc
LO=SL Þp ¼ ðFDM LO=SL Þp × wi
nc
2019; Zegordi et al. 2012). Table 1 describes each linguistic var- 2 3 2 g3

l 1 m 1 u1 w1
iable, the corresponding defuzzified range used in computing non- 6 . . . 7 6 7
6
¼4 . . . . 7
conformities, and explains the assessment findings. . . 5ð:xÞ4 · · · 5
The step-by-step procedure of modified FGDMA is described as wgn
l n m n un
follows: 2 3
1. The fuzzy triangular number (FTN) for the corresponding lin- l1 wg1 m1 wg1 u1 wg1
guistic term is extracted following the scenarios and descriptions 6 . .. .. 7
¼64 .. . . 5
7 ð4Þ
in Table 2. Triangular fuzzy numbers provide decision-makers
with information regarding the nonconformity factor as they con- ln wgn mn wgn un wgn
tain a three-point estimate (e.g., high severity means 0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
rather than a crisp value. This allows the flexibility to adopt ap- 5. The fuzzy score (FS) for the nonconformity likelihood of oc-
propriate construction quality management strategies for project currence (LO) or severity level (SL) of a project is the sum
execution phases. of each column of the Eq. (4) matrix by
Table 1. Linguistic variables and corresponding fuzzy numbers

Level of nonconformity Defuzzified
likelihood/severity number range Description
Extremely high 0.90 to 1.00 Almost certain chance of the risk event occurring, and construction quality is extremely compromised
Very high 0.70 to <0.90 Very high chance of the risk event occurring, and most significant in deteriorating construction quality
High 0.50 to <0.70 High chance of the risk event occurring, and significant in deteriorating construction quality
Medium 0.30 to <0.50 Likely chance of the risk event occurring, and moderately significant in deteriorating construction quality
Low 0.10 to <0.30 Rare chance of the risk event occurring, and little significance in deteriorating construction quality
Very low 0.025 to <0.10 Very rare chance of the risk event occurring, and very little significance in deteriorating construction quality
None 0 to <0.025 Risk event almost never happens, and/or deteriorates construction quality

© ASCE
Table 2. Mapping building construction nonconformities in different construction phases with varying project scenarios
Building ownership not specific Private building
Mixed Residential
building Not specific (NS) Residential building Mixed building building
NS HRB NS NS LRB NS NS NS HRB NS

Pheng Santoso Ahzahar Ercan Macarulla Tayeh Islam Yoon
and Wee et al. et al. and Kara et al. et al. Liu et al. Wasfy et al.
Project phase Nonconformity (code) (2001) (2003) (2011) (2021) (2013) (2020) (2003) (2021b) (2010) (2021)
Planning and design Incorrect site survey (PD1) x x — — — x — — — —
Incorrect soil investigation (PD2) — x — — — — — x — —
Architectural design errors (PD3) — x x — — — — — — —
Structural design errors (PD4) — — x — — — — — — x
Insufficient detailing in drawings/designs (PD5) x x — — — — x — — —
Steel fabrication in Insufficient concrete cover of reinforcement (SFF1) — — — x — x — x — —
foundation Deviation of pile/footing centers from their layout positions (SFF2) — — — — x — — x — —
Incorrect reinforcement (size) due to deviation from the design (SFF3) — — — — x — — — x —
Incorrect size of reinforcement bar hooks and development length (SFF4) — — — — — — — x — —
Steel fabrication in Vertical misalignment of column (floor to floor) (SFS1) — — — — x — — x — —
superstructure Insufficient concrete cover of reinforcement (SFS2) — — — x — — — x — —
(beam-column-slab) Incorrect reinforcement (size of rebar) due to deviation from the design (SFS3) — — — — x — — — x —
Insufficient size of laps (SFS4) — — — — — — — x — —
04022075-5
Spacing of the stirrup deviating from the design specification (SFS5) — — — — — — — x — —

Inaccurate size of reinforcement bar hooks and development length in — — — — — — — x — —
beams (SFS6)
Misalignment (horizontal) of the beam (SFS7) — — — — x — — — — —
No stirrup in beam-column joint (SFS8) — — — — — — — x x —
Incorrect electrical piping creating a structural problem (SFS9) — — — — x — — — x —
Incorrect opening for sanitary/water supply piping (SFS10) — — — — x — — — — —
Concrete quality Insufficient sand netting (CQ1) — — — — — — — x — —
(throughout the Insufficient stone washing (CQ2) — — — — — — — x — —
structure) Inaccurate mixing ratio of cement, sand, and stone (CQ3) — — — — x x — — — —
Inaccurate water-cement ratio (excessive dry/loose) (CQ4) — — — — — x — — — —
Insufficient curing (CQ5) — — — — — x — — — x
Premature stressing on concrete (CQ6) — — — — — x — x — —
Insufficient compaction/vibration (CQ7) — x x — — x — — — —
Poor gradation of course/fine aggregates (CQ8) x — x — — x — — — —
Formwork/shuttering Defective formwork (FW1) — — — — — x — — — —
Holes in formwork (FW2) — — — — — — — x — —
Gaps in formwork joints (causing leakage) (FW3) — — — — — — — x — —
— — — — — — — —
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Early removal of formwork (FW4) x x

Monitoring and Insufficient work inspection (MC1) — — — — — — — x x x
control (quality) Insufficient full-time supervision (MC2) — — — — — — — x x x
Consultant/designer not invited for supervision (MC3) — — — — — — — x — —
Insufficient material field tests (MC4) — — — — — — — x — —
Lack of site order book for record-keeping of site-related information (MC5) — — — — — — — — x —
Insufficient periodic laboratory testing of materials (MC6) — — — — — — — x — —
Note: HRB = high-rise building; LRB = low-rise building; and NS = not specific.

" #
X
n X
n X
n nonconformities; thus, they were coded as PD1 , PD2 , PD3 , PD4 ,
ðFSrLC=SL Þp ¼ li wgi ; mi wgi ; ui wgi ð5Þ and PD5 . Similarly, the concrete quality (CQ) group had 8 noncon-
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 formities and were coded accordingly as CQ1 to CQ8 . These non-
conformities were then used to develop the questionnaire for
6. The nonconformity detection time FSnc
DT also is used to assess eliciting expert judgments. The questionnaire contained three parts:
the importance level of a nonconformity, with similar equations (1) the attributes of experts (academic qualifications, professional
to Eqs. (1)–(5) applied for the fuzzy detection time calculation.
position, and years of relevant working experience); (2) character-
7. The total importance score to identify the level of a non-
istics of the building projects; and (3) the nonconformities’ likeli-
conformity depends on the likelihood of occurrence, severity
hood of occurrence, severity, and detection time in building
level, and its detection time. Thus, the fuzzy score ðFSnc ÞL;M;U
construction phases. To evaluate their likelihood and severity,
of a nonconformity is calculated by Eq. (6) and is adapted from the experts evaluated each nonconformity on a linguistic scale from
Xu et al.’s (2010) fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk “absence or no impact” to “extremely frequent or severe” based on
assessment as completed or partially completed projects where they were work-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ing. The detection time of each nonconformity before, during, or

ðFSnc ÞL;M;U ¼ ðFSnc LO ÞP × ðFSSL ÞP × ðFSDT ÞP
nc nc
ð6Þ after construction was assessed linguistically as having a “low,”
L;M;U
“medium,” or “high” impact on construction quality. These quali-
where ðFSnc
LO Þp , ðFSnc
SL Þp ,
and ðFSnc
DT Þp
= fuzzy scores for the tative terms also follow Table 1 for fuzzy-based nonconformity as-
likelihood of occurrence, severity level, and detection time, re- sessment. The questionnaire was distributed to 130 Bangladeshi
spectively, for a nonconformity involved in a project phase (p) building construction professionals by online contact and 100 by
or whole project (P). Although conventional fuzzy if-then rules direct visits, resulting in 95 responses.
are usually applied to make inferences regarding the importance The experts were randomly selected from the building con-
of a nonconformity (based on its likelihood of occurrence, se- struction industry of Bangladesh. This involved collecting the
verity level, and detection time), they have been criticized for email addresses of civil engineers listed in the Institute of Engineers
their inability to deal with subjective biases (Novak 2012); Bangladesh (IEB) (http://www.iebbd.org/) and the authors’ fellow
hence, Xu et al.’s (2010) suggested alternative technique is used alumni (civil engineering graduates) list for the first step to invite
instead. them to participate in the online survey. Afterward, the researchers
8. The nonconformity level (i.e., “none” to “extreme”) is defined directly visited owners, contractors, field engineers, and consulting
by the defuzzification, which is computed as (Abdelgawad and firms in major cities in Bangladesh to distribute the questionnaire
Fayek 2010) and invite them to participate in the survey. As they all work in the
same domain (i.e., building design and construction), they were
ðFSnc ÞL þ 4 × ðFSnc ÞM þ ðFSnc ÞU
f ðxi Þ ¼ ðFSnc ÞDeff : ¼ ð7Þ randomly selected for data collection (Islam et al. 2021b; Love
6 and Edwards 2004b; Tayeh et al. 2020). The importance of select-
The FGDMA model is used for building construction ing the Bangladeshi construction industry lies in its population den-
nonconformity assessment by developing an Excel spreadsheet sity and construction growth. The industry contributes 12%–15%
[Microsoft® Excel® for Microsoft 365 MSO (Version 2205) 32-bit]. of the national GDP through its linkage industries (Islam and
However, the developed model can be adopted to other Excel ver- Suhariadi 2018). The private sector plays a vital role, with 43% of
sions, too. total investment (approximately USD 1.5 billion) in building large
apartments, shopping complexes, and education buildings (REHAB
2017). The public sector also invests substantial capital in building
Eliciting Expert Judgments academic institutions (schools, colleges, and universities); health
Construction nonconformities can be investigated by direct complexes; and commercial, industrial, and multi-complex build-
observation/site visits, document study, interviews, or question- ings. However, shoddy construction work, construction code vio-
naire surveys of domain experts (Islam et al. 2021b; Paton-Cole lations, and poor quality materials have caused devastating building
and Aibinu 2021). Semi-structured interviews with domain experts collapses in the capital city Dhaka and surrounding areas (Islam
provide a common way of collecting data for project quality man- et al. 2021a, b; Wikipedia 2013). Thus, construction quality and
agement associated nonconformities have significant importance in deliver-
research (Almahmoud et al. 2012; Gutierrez and Hussein 2015). ing quality and sustainable construction for city dwellers’ safe liv-
This process allows the participants to incorporate any important ing places.
additional information. In the present study, the nonconformities
in different phases of building construction projects were initially
identified by a literature review followed by semi-structured inter- Results and Discussion
views and a discussion with a panel of six experts similar to Islam
et al. (2021b) and Liu (2003). The panel experts were randomly
Background of the Respondents
selected from a combination of academic and industry professio-
nals and consisted of two public university professors in civil (con- The expert judgments were obtained using the random sampling
struction) engineering with 15 to 20 years of experience in both method to ensure the diversified representation of different stake-
academic and professional fields, two building design and construc- holders, including their professional positions, educational back-
tion consultants with 10 to 15 years of experience, and two project grounds, and varying levels of experience, to reduce subjectivity
managers working in the building construction industry for 20 to and biases involved in eliciting expert judgment (Islam et al.
25 years. 2021b; Love and Edwards 2004b; Tayeh et al. 2020). Fig. 2 illus-
The final list of construction nonconformities was mapped trates the profiles of the 95 experts who participated in this study,
against different building projects with corresponding references showing they represented a good combination of private owners,
(Table 2). Each nonconformity was coded to link to its group name. contractors, and consultants, with most (32) being consultants, fol-
For instance, the planning and design (PD) group had 5 lowed by private owners and contractors. They held different

Number of experts
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Residential
Multipurpose
150+
Lump-sum
Cost plus guaranteed

Academic
50-100
Unit price
Cost plus reimburse
10
Private
500-1000
5000+
6-10
16+
0-10
Government
PPP
Commercial
Mosque
11-15
10-50
0-500
1000-3000
3000-5000
1-5
100-150
0 Consultant
Contractor
Other
General Manager
BSc
Private owner
Over 20
HSC/Dimploma
Government
6-10
Over 20
Project Manager
6-10
Site Engineer
MSc
PhD
Project Director
Project Engineer
11-15
16-20
11-15
16-20
0-5
0-5
Below HSC
Project Project Type Project Size (Sq. Number of Estimated Cost Type of
Ownership m.) Stories (Million BDT) Contract
Current Professional Experience Experience Academic
Employer Position (year) in (year) in Other Qualification
Building Project Fig. 3. Details of the projects’ profiles.
Construction
Project
Fig. 2. Profiles of the experts who participated in the questionnaire

survey. ratio (CQ4 ); insufficient concrete compaction/vibration (CQ7 ); lack
of full-time supervision (MC2 ); insufficient curing (CQ5 ); and in-
accurate mixing ratio of cement, sand, and stone (CQ3 ). Of the top
5 factors, 4 concerned on-site concrete production, and 17 out of 20
executive positions, including general manager, project director, nonconformities have scores between 0.40 to 0.50. All noncon-
project manager, and project engineer. The majority (40) were formities were identified as medium-level risk in terms of deterio-
project engineers, who were field-level experts and readily available rating construction quality. As Table 1 shows, these medium-level
in the project sites. The bulk of respondents held a BSc Engineering risks can be defined as triangular fuzzy numbers, i.e., 0.3, 0.5, and
degree, with varying academic levels also represented. The partic- 0.7, interpreted as having (1) a medium chance of occurrence and
ipants had an average of 10 years of experience working in construc- causing moderate impact on construction quality, (2) a high chance
tion projects. They had different levels of experience (years) working of occurrence and causing significant harm to construction quality,
in building construction projects, which helped ensure diversified and (3) a very high chance of occurrence and causing very signifi-
knowledge levels (Islam et al. 2019a; Xu et al. 2010). Some had cant harm to construction quality, respectively. Of these, the preva-
additional experience (an average of five years) in other construction lent nonconformities were mostly relevant to concrete production
projects along with building projects. Therefore, the respondents (CQ6 , CQ4 , CQ7 , and CQ5 ) with the addition of lack of full-time
were considered to have a sufficient variety of knowledge and ex- site supervision (MC2 ).
periences to avoid any significant bias in subjective knowledge- The last column of Table 3 shows the dominating detection
based risk assessment of construction projects (Islam et al. 2019a; time of each nonconformity. Most factors are encountered during
Li and Wang 2016). construction, with only two factors (CQ6 and CQ5 ) detected after
In the survey questionnaire, each expert was also asked to an- construction, and a single factor, architectural design error (PD3 ),
swer some questions regarding their recently completed or partially identified before construction. The detection times are quite con-
completed project on which the nonconformities were assessed. For sistent (i.e., 90% the same) for the factors CQ3 , CQ4 , and no stirrup
example, project ownership, functional type, floor area, building in beam-column joint (SFS8 ) and the top-ranked factors, with 4 out
height based on the number of stories, estimated cost, and contract of 5 factors having a similar score (60% to 70%).
type were asked to the experts. Hence, similar to the experts’ pro- In terms of group representations of the top 20 nonconformities,
files, their projects also had a wide variety of characteristics pre- 19% are related to concrete quality, 18% to monitoring and control,
sented in Fig. 3. The majority (70) of the projects were private 17% to formwork/shuttering, 16% to superstructure steel fabrication,
buildings, followed by government buildings. Residential buildings and 15% to both planning/design and foundation steel fabrication.
were the most common, followed by multipurpose buildings— The first three of these are mostly controllable during construc-
defined as the buildings where residential apartments, offices, or tion with proper monitoring and control, which needs the combined
other commercial activities are accommodated. The majority (55) involvement of contractor’s staff and owner’s supervision team with
were small buildings with a floor area up to 500 m2 . Low-rise quality materials from the suppliers.
buildings up to 5-stories high dominated, followed by 6–10 story
buildings and a small percentage over 10 stories. Most (70) had an
estimated cost of less than BDT 50 million (USD 600 thousand), Nonconformities with Project Variables
with a unit price followed by a lump-sum contract type. As Fig. 4 shows, the nonconformity scenario varies according to
project functional type, with premature concrete stressing (CQ6 )
having a defuzzified score close to 0.60—a higher risk level for all
Major Nonconformities
types except academic buildings, with a risk score less than 0.30
Table 3 shows the overall nonconformity scenario in building (rare frequency and little significance in deteriorating construction
construction projects by analyzing the total 95 responses using quality). Inaccurate water/cement ratio (CQ4 ) is similar to prema-
Eqs. (1)–(7), containing the defuzzified results of only the 20 most ture concrete stressing except for the academic buildings, where
important nonconformities owing to space limitations. The con- the factor reaches just above 0.30, meaning moderate to high risk
struction phases are restricted to reinforced cement concrete work for construction quality. Other factors are insufficient concrete
(i.e., foundation to slab casting) and disregard nonstructural brick- compaction (CQ7 ), lack of full-time site supervision (MC2 ), and
work, plastering, and other finishing tasks (plumbing, electrical, insufficient curing (CQ5 ). Overall, multipurpose, residential, and
mechanical, painting, etc.). As is shown, the nonconformities iden- commercial buildings have poor quality construction, as most non-
tified as causing the most threat to the quality of building projects conformities have a medium- to high-level risk, while mosques and
were premature concrete stressing (CQ6 ); inaccurate water-cement academic buildings have comparatively good quality construction.

Table 3. Detailed FGDMA outcomes (top 20 nonconformities)
Detection Frequency Severity Overall risk
Nonconformity Dominant
code Score Level Score Level Score Level Score Level Rank detection time
CQ6 0.614 H 0.382 M 0.499 M 0.489 M 1 After work (67%)
CQ4 0.490 M 0.407 M 0.572 H 0.485 M 2 During work (91%)
CQ7 0.528 H 0.389 M 0.511 H 0.472 M 3 During work (66%)
MC2 0.510 H 0.449 M 0.451 M 0.469 M 4 During work (73%)
CQ5 0.618 H 0.338 M 0.493 M 0.469 M 5 After work (68%)
CQ3 0.498 M 0.355 M 0.561 H 0.463 M 6 During work (92%)
MC1 0.514 H 0.393 M 0.469 M 0.456 M 7 During work (72%)
SFS8 0.476 M 0.386 M 0.480 M 0.445 M 8 During work (90%)
FW3 0.487 M 0.383 M 0.467 M 0.443 M 9 During work (80%)
MC6 0.460 M 0.422 M 0.447 M 0.443 M 10 During work (54%)

PD5 0.443 M 0.382 M 0.413 M 0.412 M 15 During work (68%)
CQ1 0.439 M 0.335 M 0.438 M 0.401 M 16 During work (64%)
PD3 0.410 M 0.364 M 0.397 M 0.390 M 20 Before work (53%)
CQ6 quality of all high-rise buildings, including those with 6–10 stories,
PD3 0.6 CQ4
have high-level nonconformity. This constitutes a serious threat to
FW2 0.5 CQ7
the occupants, investors/developers, and the construction quality
0.4 control authority as Bangladesh is an earthquake- and other natural
CQ2 MC2
0.3 disasters-prone country, which sharply increases vulnerability to
CQ8 0.2 CQ5 Multipurpose structural collapse (Apu and Das 2020; Omar et al. 2021). How-
0.1 Residential ever, although the construction quality of private low-rise academic
CQ1 0 CQ3 Commercial and high-rise commercial buildings is generally quite good (non-
Mosque conformity scores below 0.30), such factors as premature concrete
PD5 MC1 Academic
stressing (CQ6 ), consultant/designer not invited for supervision
(MC3 ), and insufficient periodic laboratory testing of materials
MC3 SFS8 (MC6 ) have very low scores (less than 0.10), which severely re-
duces their average nonconformity score.
FW1 FW3
MC4 MC6
MC5 Discussion
Fig. 4. Comparative nonconformity scenario with respect to project The application of FGDMA to the nonconformity assessment of
functional types. building construction projects in Bangladesh reveals several in-
sights. Concrete quality-related nonconformities, which are the
contractor’s responsibility, are mostly to blame for the poor quality
of construction work, with premature concrete stressing the most
Table 4 contains 15 different project scenarios to better under- frequent and severe. Premature concrete stressing means loading a
stand the context of project nonconformities and their profile in concrete or reinforced concrete structure before 28 days. This cor-
terms of building ownership, story height, and functional type, responds with Islam et al.’s (2021b) previous research identifying
showing that the nonconformity levels of multipurpose low-rise nonconformities in the building construction projects in Bangla-
(1–5 stories) government buildings have the highest level of risk desh, where loading to immature concrete structuring and early re-
(0.605), which means this group has frequent nonconformities and moval of formwork were found responsible for premature concrete
a significant effect on the deterioration of construction quality. This stressing. As confirmed by a study in Palestine (Tayeh et al. 2020),
result is expected, as all of the 20 nonconformities except “lack of construction industries in developing countries can also experience
site order book for record-keeping of site-related information” similar early formwork removal problems; as reported in a Malay-
(MC5 ) in this project group have a high-level risk score of above sian study (Ahzahar et al. 2011), these factors (removing formwork
0.50. Such nonconformities as insufficient curing (CQ5 ) and insuf- and immature loading) can be the root causes of cracking concrete,
ficient work inspection (MC1 ), for instance, have a very high-risk with a cause-effect analysis of building collapse in South Africa
level (above 0.70) as they have a very high chance of occurrence and also finding early removal of formwork causing the collapse of a
the most effect on the deterioration of construction quality. newly-cast slab (Emuze et al. 2015).
The next worse quality project is government-owned high- Such other on-site factors producing poor quality concrete
rise (at least 11 stories) residential projects with a risk score of as incorrect water/cement ratios, insufficient curing, and incorrect
0.592, followed by privately-owned low-rise multipurpose build- mixing ratios have also been observed in a previous field study in
ings (0.546) and government-owned high-rise multipurpose build- Bangladesh (Islam et al. 2021b). These factors are associated with
ings (0.523). The last row of Table 4 shows that the construction poor workmanship and a lack of full-time quality assurance site

© ASCE
Table 4. Nonconformities analysis based on 15 different project scenarios

Government Private
At least
1–5 stories 6–10 stories At least 11 stories 1–5 stories 6–10 stories 11 stories
Nonconformity
code Multipurpose Mosque Academic Commercial Multipurpose Residential Multipurpose Residential Commercial Multipurpose Academic Residential Commercial Multipurpose Multipurpose
CQ6 0.671 0.499 0.253 0.676 0.505 0.528 0.386 0.527 0.652 0.575 0.398 0.439 0.058 0.262 0.554
CQ4 0.674 0.385 0.394 0.619 0.471 0.701 0.626 0.478 0.688 0.548 0.19 0.455 0.344 0.324 0.487
CQ7 0.575 0.564 0.3 0.75 0.519 0.785 0.528 0.41 0.56 0.533 0.356 0.478 0.57 0.415 0.539
MC2 0.617 0.55 0.36 0.556 0.475 0.757 0.528 0.409 0.546 0.604 0.26 0.528 0.356 0.478 0.468
CQ5 0.709 0.655 0.33 0.606 0.492 0.386 0.528 0.388 0.588 0.597 0.29 0.514 0.058 0.318 0.558
CQ3 0.688 0.378 0.35 0.6 0.515 0.785 0.528 0.458 0.669 0.542 0.422 0.469 0.372 0.312 0.491
MC1 0.705 0.479 0.452 0.593 0.536 0.528 0.528 0.392 0.55 0.584 0.19 0.511 0.356 0.421 0.435
SFS8 0.593 0.468 0.217 0.51 0.452 0.386 0.386 0.465 0.496 0.574 0.356 0.398 0.422 0.395 0.533
FW3 0.624 0.153 0.273 0.51 0.488 0.559 0.325 0.428 0.61 0.55 0.19 0.427 0.372 0.435 0.468
MC6 0.515 0.268 0.263 0.566 0.515 0.701 0.785 0.437 0.473 0.551 0.3 0.478 0.052 0.37 0.495
MC5 0.428 0.206 0.254 0.376 0.45 0.202 0.626 0.369 0.551 0.551 0.528 0.419 0.308 0.477 0.486
MC4 0.616 0.497 0.354 0.419 0.45 0.51 0.701 0.434 0.417 0.685 0.3 0.462 0.422 0.361 0.477
FW1 0.624 0.311 0.324 0.401 0.497 0.626 0.325 0.409 0.524 0.501 0.26 0.424 0.26 0.326 0.467
MC3 0.597 0.484 0.398 0.326 0.497 0.528 0.701 0.329 0.335 0.558 0.017 0.496 0.052 0.317 0.56
PD5 0.531 0.347 0.224 0.559 0.471 0.662 0.356 0.319 0.404 0.391 0.16 0.391 0.3 0.388 0.553
CQ1 0.617 0.356 0.275 0.43 0.497 0.604 0.528 0.328 0.522 0.584 0.16 0.408 0.472 0.333 0.419
CQ8 0.635 0.345 0.286 0.422 0.43 0.701 0.528 0.393 0.391 0.501 0.422 0.405 0.308 0.255 0.458
CQ2 0.626 0.319 0.307 0.503 0.471 0.785 0.626 0.316 0.571 0.501 0.16 0.388 0.344 0.34 0.473
04022075-9
FW2 0.55 0.26 0.272 0.52 0.488 0.472 0.528 0.334 0.507 0.448 0.19 0.393 0.19 0.336 0.506
PD3 0.507 0.294 0.255 0.503 0.428 0.626 0.398 0.296 0.361 0.549 0.3 0.389 0.356 0.316 0.583
Mean score 0.605 0.391 0.307 0.522 0.482 0.592 0.523 0.396 0.521 0.546 0.272 0.444 0.298 0.359 0.5
Note: The italic values indicate the highest (high level according to Table 1), and the lowest (low level according to Table 1) mean scores for different categories.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

supervisors. Poor workmanship is one of the most frequent factors (Table 3) provide more insight into other nonconformities. Further-
identified as associated with both developing and developed coun- more, 15 different project scenarios are presented in Table 4 against
tries (Forcada et al. 2013b; Hamma-Adama et al. 2020; Islam et al. top-ranked nonconformities, which provide varying nonconformity
2021b; Ismail et al. 2015; Love and Edwards 2004a; Wasfy 2010; levels for different building projects, including residential, commer-
Yoon et al. 2021), while poor site management and lack of super- cial, multipurpose, and mosques; and high-rise or low-rise, private,
vision, or lack of skilled personnel at site for ensuring the required or public buildings. These analyses provide additional details to the
construction quality has been reported in several countries includ- stakeholders of nonconformities in diverse projects. Islam et al.’s
ing Hong Kong, UK, and Australia (Auchterlounie 2009; Hardie (2021b) case studies cover three residential projects in Bangladesh,
and Saha 2014; Sun and Meng 2009)—a particular problem in which provide nonconformity scenarios of residential but private
Bangladesh being private building owners cutting costs by dispens- buildings only without further details. Moreover, many other pre-
ing with full-time supervision by a skilled team (Islam et al. 2021b). vious studies discussed in the literature review section did not
Similar to the residential buildings in Bangladesh, specific present such a very detailed nonconformity scenario analysis. Thus,
project-based studies in Spain (Macarulla et al. 2013) and the Gaza this study adds new knowledge for nonconformity management
Strip (Tayeh et al. 2020) found that such nonconformities as inac- from the planning to execution phases of different building proj-
curate mixing of concrete materials (CQ3 ), an inaccurate water- ects in Bangladesh and other economically similar South Asian
cement ratio (CQ4 ), and insufficient curing (CQ5 ) are critical causes countries.
of substandard buildings. Insufficient inspection and lack of super-
vision are other major nonconformities in Bangladesh’s residential
building projects (Table 4). The importance of inspection and super- Conclusion
vision issues are highlighted to overcome construction defects in
residential buildings in South Korea (Lee et al. 2020) and Australia The quest for optimal construction quality is becoming a continuing
(Paton-Cole and Aibinu 2021). Our study also observed that multi- aspiration worldwide. Despite the advances in building materials,
purpose (residential and commercial) buildings have poor quality design and construction technologies, and the adoption of modern
construction, which is strongly supported by Pheng and Wee’s quality management approaches, the building construction industry
(2001) study in South Korea, Wasy’s (2010) study in Saudi Arabia, is plagued with nonconformities, defects, and poor quality construc-
and Tayeh et al.’s (2020) study in the Gaza Strip. tion. This research presented a study conducted in Bangladesh to
However, the study differs from the previous work in the ap- identify critical nonconformity issues commonly encountered in
plication of FGDMA’s findings and investigating nonconformity building construction projects. The study proposed and applied a
detection times in the project execution phases. As stated in the modified FGDMA to proactively identify nonconformities by taking
methodology section, the strength of FGDMA is in its ability to into account the likelihood, severity, and specific timing of occur-
address subjectivity, bias, or imprecision in expert-judgment-based rences of nonconformity instances. The outcomes of the FGDMA
risk evaluations, providing membership functions that can capture are also analyzed in terms of building ownership, story height, and
the gradual transition and overlap between degrees of belief (very functional type. The advantage of using the FGDMA is that it
low to extreme) in assessing nonconformities (Fayek 2020; Islam incorporates a mechanism to address subjective judgment or bias
et al. 2019a), which neither RII nor averaging methods can address. involved in traditional fuzzy decision-making through the ration-
For example, a risk score of 0.489 for CQ6 (premature stressing on alization of experts’ experience level and judgment along with
concrete) by the RII or averaging technique indicates a moderate other project characteristics.
nonconformity level of the factor and has no further explanation. Several nonconformities in the project preconstruction through
On the other hand, the defuzzified score of 0.489 for the same risk construction phases are identified as significant in producing the
found by the FGDMA model can be defined as the triangular fuzzy poor building quality, leading to unsafe working and living places.
function of 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7, according to Table 2. This defuzzified Notably, premature concrete stressing, incorrect water-cement ra-
range means “likely chance of risk event occurring, and moderately tios, insufficient concrete compaction, lack of full-time site super-
significant in deteriorating construction quality.” Moreover, the vision, and stirrups in beam-column joints were identified as the
decision-maker (risk management team) can treat this risk as 0.3 critical nonconformities involved. A group risks analysis shows
(lower least likely bound in the moderate category), 0.5 (most concrete-related factors produced by contractors to be the most se-
likely), or 0.7 (upper least likely), considering the project context vere nonconformities, followed by the monitoring and controlling
and the project manager’s risk management attitude (i.e., optimistic, group, in which the owner’s responsibility is to arrange continuous
moderate, or pessimistic). Thus, the FGDMA model provides more full-time supervision by the consultant or project management
decision-making freedom for project managers considering a par- team. A further analysis involving 15 project scenarios shows that
ticular project context. the nonconformity level varies with the type of project owner and
This study also has an added value over all other similar studies building size, number of stories, and functional type. Of these,
in that it identifies the detection time of nonconformities, which ed- government-owned low-rise (1–5 stories) multipurpose buildings
ucates the key stakeholders, including field professionals, to avoid are the most vulnerable structures for the occupants/users, followed
the nonconformities by developing an early nonconformity manage- by government-owned high-rise (11+ stories) residential build-
ment plan. The most critical nonconformities are commonly iden- ings. Privately-owned low-rise multipurpose, government-owned
tified in the “during construction” followed by “after construction.” medium-rise (6–10 stories) commercial, and privately-owned low-
For instance, previous studies found cracks in concrete elements of a rise commercial buildings are also vulnerable.
building linked to construction faults (material quality or workman- This study contributes in several ways to the construction qual-
ship). However, they did not investigate the root causes during con- ity risk management body of knowledge. It uniquely identifies the
struction. This study finds that premature concrete stressing (CQ6 ) construction nonconformities of different types of building projects
and insufficient curing (CQ5 ) are some nonconforming activities by applying a fuzzy group decision-making approach with consid-
identified after construction, and many others such as inaccurate eration of various project characteristics (project ownership, type,
mixing concrete materials (CQ3 ) and an inaccurate water-cement size, and story height). It will help owners, contractors, consultants,
ratio (CQ4 ) identified during construction, and their priority ranking and other stakeholders comply with the required quality of their

projects. It is the first empirical study to comprehensively grasp the modeling (Punniyamoorthy et al. 2011) or a canonical network
nonconformities in building construction projects, particularly in model (Islam et al. 2019b) has the potential for identifying root
densely populated South Asian countries. The applied modified causes in a nonconformity assessment and analyses in building and
FGDMA-based construction quality risk assessment model signifi- similar construction projects in future. As a further limitation, the
cantly contributes to existing nonconformity assessment and man- model’s outcomes (nonconformity assessment and ranking) are not
agement practices for building and other civil infrastructure projects, compared with other statistical or fuzzy approaches. Thus, a further
in that it considers expert weights to minimize subjective biases and study can be conducted to compare other methods (i.e., averaging or
accounts for risk detection time to assess nonconformities. These RII) and fuzzy approaches to identify the best suited model. The
outcomes further guide professionals to find the dominating occur- study can be further extended using different fuzzy membership
rence time of a specific nonconformity at the project planning stage. functions such as trapezoidal and Gaussian, and their outcomes
The approach can equally be applied to safety-related nonconfor- compared to justify the validation of using a particular type of
mity analyses of buildings and other construction projects where membership function. The study is also limited in selecting a panel
expert judgment is the dominant mode of risk evaluation. of only six experts to revise the questionnaire for the final survey.
For future studies, including more experts in the pilot study is rec-
ommended to ensure a better justification for the data obtained.
Recommendations to Industry Professionals
Based on the study findings, the following recommendations are
made to the building industry professions: Data Availability Statement
1. Supervision teams from both sides (contractor and owner) should
be particularly careful to ensure that new concrete is sufficiently Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
mature before being loaded—the highest-ranked critical noncon- study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
formity. Early de-shuttering creating premature stressing by its request.
self-weight and premature loading slabs are two means of pre-
mature stressing, which can easily be avoided by suitable site
supervision and strict guidelines/rules. Acknowledgments
2. The predominance of concrete production-related risks, with
their concomitant serious consequences to the building struc- This work was supported by the Shahjalal University of Science
ture, means that the field supervision team must ensure the cor- and Technology Research Center (Grant No. AS/2019/2/07).
rect mixing ratio is used in on-site concrete batching plants. The
potential for increased automation or factory-made products
could also be further investigated. References
3. Concrete compaction, the third most critical nonconformity, is
usually carried out in Bangladesh using a manually-driven vi- Abdelgawad, M., and A. R. Fayek. 2010. “Risk management in the construc-
brator machine. The problem is the lack of knowledge and skill tion industry using combined fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy AHP.” J. Constr.
in handling the machine for correct compaction and lack of con- Eng. Manage. 136 (9): 1028–1036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0000210.
structability due to the reduced space in such structural compo-
Aboshady, A. M., M. M. G. Elbarkouky, and M. Mohamed. 2013. “A fuzzy
nents as column and beam-column joints (Islam et al. 2021b).
risk management framework for the Egyptian real estate development
Thus, the design consultant needs to check any such construct- projects.” In Proc., Architectural Engineering Conf. 2013. Reston, VA:
ability problems before finalizing the design and working draw- ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412909.033.
ing, and the field supervision team must ensure correct concrete Ahzahar, N., N. A. Karim, S. H. Hassan, and J. Eman. 2011. “A study of
compaction during construction. contribution factors to building failures and defects in construction
4. Owners must arrange full-time site supervision in collaboration industry.” Procedia Eng. 20 (11): 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
with the design consultant, contractor, and project management .proeng.2011.11.162.
team to ensure that their building is constructed according to the Almahmoud, E. S., H. K. Doloi, and K. Panuwatwanich. 2012. “Linking
design and specifications. project health to project performance indicators: Multiple case studies
5. Building construction regulatory authorities need to take special of construction projects in Saudi Arabia.” Int. J. Project Manage.
care in the case of low-rise buildings (1–5 stories) regardless of 30 (3): 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.07.001.
Ameyaw, E. E., A. P. C. Chan, O.-M. De-Graft, and E. Coleman. 2015. “A
their functional types and owner, as these are identified as being
fuzzy model for evaluating risk impacts on variability between contract
more vulnerable in terms of construction quality. sum and final account in government-funded construction projects.”
J. Facil. Manage. 13 (1): 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-11-2013
-0055.
Recommendations for Future Studies
Apu, N., and U. Das. 2020. “Tectonics and earthquake potential of
This study is limited to the planning/design and construction stages Bangladesh: A review.” Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 12 (3):
of concrete structures of building projects. Such other parts of the 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-06-2020-0060.
construction phase as brickwork, plumbing fittings and fixtures, Auchterlounie, T. 2009. “Recurring quality issues in the UK private house
electrical wiring and fittings, painting and tiles fitting, and HVAC building industry.” Struct. Surv. 27 (3): 241–251. https://doi.org/10
.1108/02630800910971365.
are not studied. Moreover, nonconformities in the operation and
Chileshe, N., and E. Dzisi. 2012. “Benefits and barriers of construction
maintenance phase of buildings are also beyond the scope of this
health and safety management (HSM): Perceptions of practitioners
study. Thus, further studies are needed of these project phases to within design organisations.” J. Eng. Des. Technol. 10 (2): 276–298.
better understand the nonconformities and their detection times https://doi.org/10.1108/17260531211241220.
from a project life cycle perspective. While the fuzzy-based method de Wit, C. 2014. Exploring the nature of nonconformities. Enschede,
can handle subjective judgment in the nonconformity assessment, it Netherlands: Univ. of Twenty.
does not capture any causal relationships between nonconformities. Elbarkouky, M. M. G., A. R. Fayek, N. B. Siraj, and N. Sadeghi. 2016.
Fuzzy group decision-making combined with a structural equation “Fuzzy arithmetic risk analysis approach to determine construction proj-

ect contingency.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (12): 04016070. https:// Jingmond, M., and R. Ågren. 2015. “Unravelling causes of defects in con-
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001191. struction.” Constr. Innov. 15 (2): 198–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI
Emuze, F., L. van Eeden, and F. Geminiani. 2015. “Causes and effects of -04-2014-0025.
building collapse: A case study in South Africa.” In Proc., CIB W099. Jonsson, A. Z., and R. H. Gunnelin. 2019. “Defects in newly constructed
Kanata, ON, Canada: International Council for Research and Innova- residential buildings: Owners’ perspective.” Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt.
tion in Building Construction. 37 (2): 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-09-2018-0077.
Ercan, I., and I. B. Kara. 2021. “The effect of insufficient cover thickness Jung, J. H., D. Y. Kim, and H. K. Lee. 2015. “The computer-based con-
on structural performance of reinforced.” Lect. Notes Networks Syst. tingency estimation through analysis cost overrun risk of public con-
1369 (1): 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92851-3. struction project.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 15 (5): 1–12. https://doi.org/10
Fayek, A. R. 2020. “Fuzzy logic and fuzzy hybrid techniques for construc- .1007/s12205-015-0184-8.
tion engineering and management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 146 (7): Jung, J. H., D. Y. Kim, and H. K. Lee. 2016. “The computer-based con-
04020064. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001854. tingency estimation through analysis cost overrun risk of public con-
Forcada, N., M. Macarulla, M. Gangolells, and M. Casals. 2016. “Handover struction project.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20 (4): 1119–1130. https://doi
defects: Comparison of construction and post-handover housing defects.” .org/10.1007/s12205-015-0184-8.
Build. Res. Inf. 44 (3): 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2015 Kabir, G., R. Sadiq, and S. Tesfamariam. 2016. “A fuzzy Bayesian belief
.1039284. network for safety assessment of oil and gas pipelines.” Struct. Infra-
Forcada, N., M. Macarulla, M. Gangolells, M. Casals, A. Fuertes, and struct. Eng. 2479 (Dec): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015
X. Roca. 2013a. “Posthandover housing defects: Sources and origins.” .1053093.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 27 (6): 756–762. https://doi.org/10.1061 Lee, J., Y. Ahn, and S. Lee. 2020. “Post-handover defect risk profile
/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000368. of residential buildings using loss distribution approach.” J. Manage.
Forcada, N., M. Macarulla, and P. E. D. Love. 2013b. “Assessment of res- Eng. 36 (4): 04020021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
idential defects at post-handover.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (4): .0000785.
372–378. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000603. Li, Y., and X. Wang. 2016. “Risk assessment for public–private partnership
Forcada, N., M. MacArulla, M. Gangolells, and M. Casals. 2014. “Assess- projects: Using a fuzzy analytic hierarchical process method and expert
ment of construction defects in residential buildings in Spain.” Build. opinion in China.” J. Risk Res. 9877 (Apr): 1–22. https://doi.org/10
Res. Inf. 42 (5): 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014 .1080/13669877.2016.1264451.
.922266. Liu, A. M. M. 2003. “The quest for quality in public housing projects: A
Gerami Seresht, N., and A. R. Fayek. 2019. “Computational method for behaviour-to-outcome paradigm.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 21 (2):
fuzzy arithmetic operations on triangular fuzzy numbers by extension 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000049700.
principle.” Int. J. Approx. Reason. 106 (4): 172–193. https://doi.org/10 Love, P., and D. J. Edwards. 2004a. “Forensic project management: The
.1016/j.ijar.2019.01.005. underlying causes of rework in construction projects.” Civ. Eng. Envi-
Gurmu, A. T., A. Krezel, and C. Ongkowijoyo. 2021. “Fuzzy-stochastic ron. Syst. 21 (3): 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286600412331
model to assess defects in low-rise residential buildings.” J. Build. 295955.
Eng. 40 (Jan): 102318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102318. Love, P. E. D., and D. J. Edwards. 2004b. “Determinants of rework in
Gutierrez, C., and B. A. Hussein. 2015. “Insights on the impact of conform- building construction projects.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 11 (4):
ity and commitment on project performance.” In Proc., 2015 IEEE 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980410547612.
8th Int. Conf. Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Comput- Love, P. E. D., J. Matthews, M. C. P. Sing, S. R. Porter, and W. Fang. 2022.
ing Systems: Technology and Applications, IDAACS 2015, 543–550. “State of science: Why does rework occur in construction? What are its
New York: IEEE. consequences? And what can be done to mitigate its occurrence?” En-
Hamma-Adama, M., O. Iheukwumere, and T. Kouider. 2020. “Analysis of gineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2022.05.010.
causes of building collapse: System thinking approach.” Jordan J. Civ. Macarulla, M., N. Forcada, M. Casals, M. Gangolells, A. Fuertes, and X.
Eng. 14 (2): 188–197. Roca. 2013. “Standardizing housing defects: Classification, validation,
Hardie, M., and S. Saha. 2014. “Builders’ perceptions of lowest cost pro- and benefits.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (8): 968–976. https://doi.org
curement and its impact on quality.” Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. /10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000669.
9 (1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2. Milion, R. N., T. D. C. L. Alves, and J. C. Paliari. 2017. “Impacts of res-
Heravi, G., and A. Jafari. 2014. “Cost of quality evaluation in mass-housing idential construction defects on customer satisfaction.” Int. J. Build.
projects in developing countries.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (5): Pathol. Adapt. 35 (3): 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-12
04014004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000837. -2016-0033.
Islam, M. M., M. S. Islam, and M. Ahmed. 2021a. “Building defects in the Mohammadi, A., and M. Tavakolan. 2013. “Construction project risk as-
Northeastern Region of Bangladesh: A case study.” In Proc., Int. Conf. sessment using combined fuzzy and FMEA.” IEEE Explor. 2013 (1):
on Engineering and Education. Sylhet, Bangladesh: Shahjalal Univ. of 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1109/IFSA-NAFIPS.2013.6608405.
Science and Technology. Mohd-Noor, Z., A. I. Che-Ani, Z. Sulaiman, M. Z. Abd-Razak, and N. M.
Islam, M. S., M. M. Islam, H. R. T. Imran, M. Skitmore, and M. P. Nepal. Tawil. 2016. “Condition monitoring framework based on the cause of
2021b. “Grasping the nonconformities in building construction supply mosque physical defects in Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.” J. Perform.
chains.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 35 (1): 04020141. https://doi.org/10 Constr. Facil. 30 (5): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943
.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001546. -5509.0000879.
Islam, M. S., M. P. Nepal, and M. Skitmore. 2019a. “Modified fuzzy group Nguyen, P. H. D., and A. Robinson Fayek. 2022. “Applications of fuzzy
decision-making approach to cost overrun risk assessment of power hybrid techniques in construction engineering and management re-
plant projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (2): 04018126. https://doi search.” Autom. Constr. 134 (21): 104064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001593. .autcon.2021.104064.
Islam, M. S., M. P. Nepal, M. Skitmore, and G. Kabir. 2019b. “A Novak, V. 2012. “Reasoning about mathematical fuzzy logic and its future.”
knowledge-based expert system to assess power plant project cost over- Fuzzy Sets Syst. 192 (Sep): 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2010
run risks.” Expert Syst. Appl. 136 (6): 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .09.019.
.eswa.2019.06.030. Novák, V. 2006. “Fuzzy sets as a special mathematical model of vagueness
Islam, M. S., and B. T. Suhariadi. 2018. “Construction delays in privately phenomenon.” Vol. 38 of Computational intelligence, edited by B. Re-
funded large building projects in Bangladesh.” Asian J. Civ. Eng. 19 (4): usch. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34783-6_66.
415–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-018-0034-3. Omar, M. A. I., M. Matsuyuki, S. Das, and M. Ubaura. 2021. “An
Ismail, I., A. I. C. Ani, M. Z. A. Razak, N. M. Tawil, and S. Johar. 2015. assessment of physical aspects for seismic response capacity in Dhaka,
“Common building defects in new terrace houses.” J. Teknol. 75 (9): Bangladesh.” Prog. Disaster Sci. 10 (21): 100175. https://doi.org/10
83–88. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v75.5239. .1016/j.pdisas.2021.100175.

Omondi, S. 2019. “The worst building collapses in history.” World Facts. Sommerville, J. 2007. “Defects and rework in new build: An analysis of the
Accessed August 2, 2019. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the phenomenon and drivers.” Struct. Surv. 25 (5): 391–407. https://doi
-worst-building-collapses-in-history.html. .org/10.1108/02630800710838437.
Oyewobi, L., and D. Ogumsemi. 2010. “Factors influencing rework occur- Sun, M., and X. Meng. 2009. “Taxonomy for change causes and effects in
ence in construction: A study of selected building projects in Nigeria.” construction projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 27 (6): 560–572. https://
J. Build. Perform. 1 (1): 1–20. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.005.
Paton-Cole, V. P., and A. A. Aibinu. 2021. “Construction defects and dis- Tayeh, B. A., A. Maqsoom, Y. I. A. Aisheh, M. Almanassra, H. Salahuddin,
putes in low-rise residential buildings.” J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. and M. I. Qureshi. 2020. “Factors affecting defects occurrence in the
Constr. 13 (1): 05020016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170 construction stage of residential buildings in Gaza Strip.” SN Appl.
.0000433. Sci. 2 (2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-1959-1.
Pheng, L. S., and D. Wee. 2001. “Improving maintenance and reducing Wasfy, M. A. F. 2010. Severity and impact of rework: A case study of
building defects.” J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 7 (1): 6–24. https://doi.org/10 a residential commercial tower project in the eastern province-KSA.
.1108/13552510110386865. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: King Fahd Univ. of Petroleum and Minerals.
Press, A. 2020. “5-story building collapse in India killing at least 12 peo-
Waziri, B. S. 2016. “Design and construction defects influencing residential
ple.” Accessed August 25, 2021. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation
building maintenance in Nigeria.” Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 10 (3): 313–323.

-world/building-collapses-in-india-11-injured-taken-to-hospital/.
https://doi.org/10.14525/JJCE.10.3.3605.
Punniyamoorthy, M., P. Mathiyalagan, and P. Parthiban. 2011. “A strategic
Wikipedia. 2013. “2013 Dhaka garment factory collapse.” Accessed July
model using structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic in supplier
selection.” Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (1): 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j 28, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Dhaka_garment_factory
.eswa.2010.06.086. _collapse#Causes.
REHAB. 2017. “Real estate development.” Accessed July 28, 2021. http:// Xu, Y., A. P. C. Chan, and J. F. Y. Yeung. 2010. “Developing a fuzzy
www.rehab-bd.org/index.php?page=rehab_at_a_glance. risk allocation model for PPP projects in China.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
Santoso, D. S., S. O. Ogunlana, and T. Minato. 2003. “Assessment of risks age. 136 (8): 884–903. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
in high rise building construction in Jakarta.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Man- .0000189.
age. 10 (1): 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980310466541. Yoon, S., S. Son, and S. Kim. 2021. “Design, construction, and curing
Seo, J.-W., and K.-I. Kang. 2009. “The analysis of defects types and pat- integrated management of defects in finishing works of apartment
terns in high-rise residential buildings.” J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. buildings.” Sustainability 13 (10): 5382. https://doi.org/10.3390
9 (2): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.5345/JKIC.2009.9.2.093. /su13105382.
Silvestre, J. D., and J. De Brito. 2011. “Ceramic tiling in building façades: Zegordi, S. H., E. Rezaee Nik, and A. Nazari. 2012. “Power plant project
Inspection and pathological characterization using an expert system.” risk assessment using a fuzzy-ANP and fuzzy-TOPSIS method.” Int. J.
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (4): 1560–1571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Eng. Trans. B Appl. 25 (2): 107–120. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.ije
.conbuildmat.2010.09.039. .2012.25.02b.04.

Asce - JPCF 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Asce - JPCF 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asce - JPCF 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonconformity Assessment in Building Construction

Projects: A Fuzzy Group Decision-Making Approach

© ASCE 04022075-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

© ASCE 04022075-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

quality management framework to investigate the causes of defects

© ASCE 04022075-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

thus need to be weighted accordingly. This a function of their

2019; Zegordi et al. 2012). Table 1 describes each linguistic var- 2 3 2 g3

Table 1. Linguistic variables and corresponding fuzzy numbers

© ASCE 04022075-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

NS HRB NS NS LRB NS NS NS HRB NS

Spacing of the stirrup deviating from the design specification (SFS5) — — — — — — — x — —

Early removal of formwork (FW4) x x

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

ing. The detection time of each nonconformity before, during, or

© ASCE 04022075-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

Cost plus guaranteed

Fig. 2. Profiles of the experts who participated in the questionnaire

© ASCE 04022075-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

MC5 0.478 M 0.499 M 0.350 M 0.437 M 11 During work (82%)

© ASCE 04022075-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

Table 4. Nonconformities analysis based on 15 different project scenarios

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

© ASCE 04022075-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

© ASCE 04022075-11 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

© ASCE 04022075-12 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

building maintenance in Nigeria.” Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 10 (3): 313–323.

© ASCE 04022075-13 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2023, 37(1): 04022075

You might also like