## 1 Introduction  
As the basis of quantitative research on schedule robustness, robustness measures are an effective tool to measure the anti-interference ability of schedules [1]. There are two aspects of construction schedule robustness, namely, solution robustness and quality robustness, in measuring a schedule'srobustness. In detail, solution robustness refers to the deviation between the planned and the actual schedule, which measures the robustness from the perspective of project execution. Quality robustness refers to the deviation between the planned and the actual construction duration, which measures the robustness from the perspective of the project result. However, current research mostly focuses on a single robustness criterion, and few consider a composite robustness criterion, neglecting the bounded rationality of subjective weights and the inherent importance and nonlinear intercriteria correlations of objective weights. Therefore, it is of great importance to measure the schedule robustness comprehensively, which considers both solution robustness from project execution and quality robustness from project execution, in addition to the bounded rationality of subjective weights and the inherent importance and nonlinear intercriteria correlations of objective weights. Studies of the robustness measure are mainly related to job shops, while a few studies on construction schedule robustness measures have been made. While current methods measuring robustness focus on using a single criterion of solution robustness, which is lacking the quality robustness criteria. [PERSON] (1988) measured the solution robustness using activity durations for project scheduling. [PERSON] (1988) used start time deviation to measure the solution robustness and the objective optimization function of job shop production. [PERSON] (1988) measured robustness by a solution robustness criterion, which calculates the average deviation of start time between the planned schedule and the actual schedule. [PERSON] (1988) took covariance as a solution robustness criterion and measured the robustness of the schedule obtained by simulations and the critical chain method. [PERSON] (1990) established a robustness criterion using a time slack-based technique to deal with schedules with mechanical malfunction and new job arrivals. [PERSON] (1991) took the expected relative deviation between the planned and actual schedule as a solution robustness criterion and used the criterion to analyze the robustness of the stochastic job shop scheduling problem. [PERSON] (1990) measured the schedule robustness of job shop production concerning mechanical malfunction through a solution robustness criterion. [PERSON] (1990) proposed a start time deviation as the solution robustness criterion and used it as the optimization objective for robust project scheduling. [PERSON] (2018) carried out a construction schedule robustness measure of underground power stations by adopting a solution robustness criterion named'start time deviation'. [PERSON] (2018) proposed activity delay as the solution robustness criterion to deal with the materials ordering problem. [PERSON] (2018) proposed the worst-case expected total flow time as the solution robustness criterion for the robust scheduling of a flowshop. [PERSON] (2018) took the travel time as the solution robustness criterion in scheduling vehicle routing. Studies on the quality robustness criterion are fewer than that on solution robustness criterion and concentrate on the robustness measure of air transport schedules. [PERSON] (2018) presented the net present value as a quality criterion to investigate the robust resource-constrained project problem with stochastic activity durations. [PERSON] (2018) built a simulation model of the flight and the quotient of the number of iterations to find an optimal crew pairing, and the total number of iterations was taken as its criterion measuring quality robustness.