Analytical Hierarchical Process as a Multicriteria Decision Tool in Material Selection for Prefabricated Wood Buildings
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
Analytic Hierarchy Process
Criteria | Description | Subcriteria | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Technical properties | The technical properties of materials are defined as properties that describe materials to the best of their ability. They refer to the minimum criteria to meet their functional performance requirements and are crucial in choosing the most suitable building materials. | Mechanical properties | The ability of a material to withstand stress | [35,36,37,38,39] |
Durability | Materials that are weather-resistant | |||
Fire performance | The ability of a product to resist fire thanks to its properties and to limit the spread | |||
Watertightness | Waterproof materials | |||
Site condition and logistics | Defined as the conditions of the area or surroundings, including climatic conditions, the delivery of materials, and the types of buildings depending on the construction materials to be chosen. | Ease of use | Materials that are easily integrated/used in systems or buildings | [39,40,41,42,43,44] |
Availability of materials | Materials that are easily found in the market or an area | |||
Location, shape, and height of the building | Materials that are easy to use, regardless of the construction conditions | |||
Social benefits | The benefits to society for people of the use of certain materials in buildings | Occupant health | Materials that are not hazardous to the occupants | [42,43,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] |
Comfort, satisfaction, and well-being of the building | Materials that make the well-being of the occupants possible | |||
Safety and security of building occupants | Materials that ensure the safety of the construction, the workers, and the occupants |
- Step 1—Construct the matrix:
- Step 2—Construct the normalized matrix:
- Step 3—Calculate the consistency ratio:
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Profile of the Respondents
3.2. AHP Analyses
3.2.1. Ranking of Criteria
3.2.2. Ranking of Subcriteria
Technical Properties
Site Conditions and Logistics
Social Benefits
3.2.3. Final Ranking of Subcriteria
4. Conclusions and Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kiss, B.; Szalay, Z. Modular Approach to Multi-Objective Environmental Optimization of Buildings. Autom. Constr. 2020, 111, 103044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferdous, W.; Bai, Y.; Ngo, T.D.; Manalo, A.; Mendis, P. New Advancements, Challenges and Opportunities of Multi-Storey Modular Buildings—A State-of-the-Art Review. Eng. Struct. 2019, 183, 883–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oti-Sarpong, K.; Shojaei, R.S.; Dakhli, Z.; Burgess, G.; Zaki, M. How Countries Achieve Greater Use of Offsite Manufacturing to Build New Housing: Identifying Typologies through Institutional Theory. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 76, 103403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamali, M.; Hewage, K. Life Cycle Performance of Modular Buildings: A Critical Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1171–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quale, J.; Eckelman, M.J.; Williams, K.W.; Sloditskie, G.; Zimmerman, J.B. Construction Matters: Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and Conventional Homes in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ordu, M.; Der, O. Polymeric Materials Selection for Flexible Pulsating Heat Pipe Manufacturing Using a Comparative Hybrid MCDM Approach. Polymers 2023, 15, 2933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pajula, T.; Behm, K.; Vatanen, S.; Saarivuori, E. Managing the Life Cycle to Reduce Environmental Impacts. In Dynamics of Long-Life Assets: From Technology Adaptation to Upgrading the Business Model; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 93–113. ISBN 9783319454382. [Google Scholar]
- Emovon, I.; Oghenenyerovwho, O.S. Application of MCDM Method in Material Selection for Optimal Design: A Review. Results Mater. 2020, 7, 100115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernasconi, M.; Choirat, C.; Seri, R. Empirical Properties of Group Preference Aggregation Methods Employed in AHP: Theory and Evidence. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 232, 584–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishizaka, A.; Siraj, S. Are Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tools Useful? An Experimental Comparative Study of Three Methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018, 264, 462–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakeri, S.; Chatterjee, P.; Konstantas, D.; Ecer, F. A Decision Analysis Model for Material Selection Using Simple Ranking Process. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 8631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peng, J.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, X. Multi-Objective Integrated Optimization Study of Prefabricated Building Projects Introducing Sustainable Levels. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, D.; Li, X.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y.; Yue, S. A Dynamic Intelligent Building Retrofit Decision-Making Model in Response to Climate Change. Energy Build. 2023, 284, 112832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Q.X.; Saaty, T.L. An Analytic Hierarchy Process Model of Group Consensus. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2014, 23, 362–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramanian, N.; Ramanathan, R. A Review of Applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Operations Management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 138, 215–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.J.; Yang, D.L. Using a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Method for Information Systems Outsourcing. Comput. Oper. Res. 2007, 34, 3691–3700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skibniewski, M.J.; Chao, L. Evaluation of Advanced Construction Technology with AHP Method. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1992, 118, 577–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossaini, N.; Reza, B.; Akhtar, S.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. AHP Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) Framework: A Case Study of Six Storey Wood Frame and Concrete Frame Buildings in Vancouver. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 58, 1217–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahlol, D.G.; Elbeltagi, E.; Elzoughiby, M.; Abd Elrahman, M. Sustainable Building Materials Assessment and Selection Using System Dynamics. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 35, 101978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reza, B.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. Sustainability Assessment of Flooring Systems in the City of Tehran: An AHP-Based Life Cycle Analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2053–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jato-Espino, D.; Castillo-Lopez, E.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.; Canteras-Jordana, J.C. A Review of Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods in Construction. Autom. Constr. 2014, 45, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salomon, V.A.P.; Arnaldo, J.; Montevechi, B. A compilation of comparisons on the analytic hierarchy process and others multiple criteria decision making methods: Some cases developed in Brazil. In Proceedings of the ISAHP 2001, Berne, Switzerland, 2–4 August 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Garbuzova-Schlifter, M.; Madlener, R. AHP-Based Risk Analysis of Energy Performance Contracting Projects in Russia. Energy Policy 2016, 97, 559–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Development of Sustainable Assessment Criteria for Building Materials Selection. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 666–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Tamošaitiene, J.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Tamošaitienn, J. Risk Assessment of Construction Projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senarathne, H.N.Y.; Asmone, A.S.; Chew, M.Y.L. Developing a Waterproofing Decision-Making Model for High-Rise Building Projects in the Tropics. Buildings 2023, 13, 2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bognár, F.; Szentes, B.; Benedek, P. Compliance Risk Assessment in the Banking Sector: Application of a Novel Pairwise Comparison-Based PRISM Method. Complexity 2023, 2023, 9165815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omotayo, T.; Awuzie, B.; Egbelakin, T.; Obi, L.; Ogunnusi, M. AHP-Systems Thinking Analyses for Kaizen Costing Implementation in the Construction Industry. Buildings 2020, 10, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhushan, N.; Rai, K. Strategic Decision Making; Springer: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Ghotb, F.; Warren, L. A Case Study Comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and a Fuzzy Decision Methodology. Eng. Econ. 2007, 40, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, G.A. The Magical Number Seven, plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychol. Rev. 1956, 63, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabral, M.R.M.R.; Blanchet, P. Prioritizing Indicators for Material Selection in Prefabricated Wooden Construction. Buildings, 2023; Under review. [Google Scholar]
- Gill, P.; Stewart, K.; Treasure, E.; Chadwick, B. Methods of Data Collection in Qualitative Research: Interviews and Focus Groups. Br. Dent. J. 2008, 204, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalil, N.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Baharum, M.R. Ranking the Indicators of Building Performance and the Users’ Risk via Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, N.; Malen, J.A.; Chamanzar, M.; Krishnamurti, R. Experimental Correlation of Thermal Conductivity with Dielectric Properties of Wood and Wood-Based Materials: Possibilities for Rapid in-Situ Building Energy Evaluation. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 50, 104178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dagenais, C.; Just, A.; Östman, B. Timber Structures and Wood Products. In Fire Safe Use of Wood in Buildings; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 1–32. ISBN 9781003190318. [Google Scholar]
- Kuperstein Blasco, D.; Saukkonen, N.; Korhonen, T.; Laine, T.; Muilu-Mäkelä, R. Wood Material Selection in School Building Procurement—A Multi-Case Analysis in Finnish Municipalities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 327, 129474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asdrubali, F.; Ferracuti, B.; Lombardi, L.; Guattari, C.; Evangelisti, L.; Grazieschi, G. A Review of Structural, Thermo-Physical, Acoustical, and Environmental Properties of Wooden Materials for Building Applications. Build. Environ. 2017, 114, 307–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasparri, E.; Aitchison, M. Unitised Timber Envelopes. A Novel Approach to the Design of Prefabricated Mass Timber Envelopes for Multi-Storey Buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 26, 100898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chew, M.Y.L.; Tan, S.S.; Kang, K.H. A Technical Evaluation Index for Curtain Wall and Cladding Facades. Struct. Surv. 2004, 22, 210–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Silva, N.; Dulaimi, M.F.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Ofori, G. Improving the Maintainability of Buildings in Singapore. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 1243–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanniyapan, G.; Nesan, L.J.; Mohammad, I.S.; Tan, S.K.; Ponniah, V. Selection Criteria of Building Material for Optimising Maintainability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 221, 651–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogunkah, I.; Yang, J. Investigating Factors Affecting Material Selection: The Impacts on Green Vernacular Building Materials in the Design-Decision Making Process. Buildings 2012, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behm, M. Linking Construction Fatalities to the Design for Construction Safety Concept. Saf. Sci. 2005, 43, 589–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allwood, J.M.; Ashby, M.F.; Gutowski, T.G.; Worrell, E. Material Efficiency: A White Paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 362–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.H.W.; Yang, L.; Lam, J.C. Zero Energy Buildings and Sustainable Development Implications—A Review. Energy 2013, 54, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, K.D.; Fan, Q. Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Sustainable Building Design. Facilities 2013, 31, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocchini, P.; Frangopol, D.M.; Ummenhofer, T.; Zinke, T. Resilience and Sustainability of Civil Infrastructure: Toward a Unified Approach. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014, 20, 04014004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- San-José Lombera, J.T.; Cuadrado Rojo, J. Industrial Building Design Stage Based on a System Approach to Their Environmental Sustainability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, M.H.; Ng, T.S.; Skitmore, M.R. Sustainable Building Envelope Design by Considering Energy Cost and Occupant Satisfaction. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2016, 31, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casanovas, M.D.M.; Armengou, J.; Ramos, G. Occupational Risk Index for Assessment of Risk in Construction Work by Activity. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04013035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamed, T. Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): A Step by Step Approach. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Syst. 2017, 2, 244–246. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. The R Project for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, E.W.L.; Li, H. Construction Partnering Process and Associated Critical Success Factors: Quantitative Investigation. J. Manag. Eng. 2002, 18, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irfan, M.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Ahmad, M.; Mohsin, M.; Dagar, V.; Hao, Y. Prioritizing and Overcoming Biomass Energy Barriers: Application of AHP and G-TOPSIS Approaches. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 177, 121524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fedorova, A.; Jelle, B.P.; Hrynyszyn, B.D.; Geving, S. A Testing Methodology for Quantification of Wind-Driven Rain Intrusion for Building-Integrated Photovoltaic Systems. Build. Environ. 2021, 199, 107917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Linden, S.; Van Den Bossche, N. Pre-Compressed Foam Sealing Tapes to Seal Joints between Building Envelope Components Watertight: An Experimental Assessment. Buildings 2023, 13, 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saito, H. Application of the Wood Degradation Model to an Actual Roof Assembly Subjected to Rain Penetration. Energy Procedia 2017, 132, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J. Guide for On-Site Moisture Management of Wood Construction; FPInnovation: Pointe-Claire, QC, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J. FPInnovations—Report Title 1 Field Measurement of Vertical Movement and Roof Moisture Performance of the Wood Innovation and Design Centre; FPInnovation: Pointe-Claire, QC, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Piggot-Navarrete, J.; Blanchet, P.; Cabral, M.R.; Perez, C. Investigating the Impact of Construction Workmanship Defects on the Hygrothermal Performance and Airtightness of Lightweight-Structure Wooden Envelope Systems. Build. Environ. 2023, 243, 110705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arce Recatalá, M.; García Morales, S.; Van den Bossche, N. Pressure-Equalised Façade Systems: Evaluation of Current Watertightness Test Standards Used to Assess the Performance of Enclosure Components. J. Build. Phys. 2020, 43, 369–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlowski, K.; Shanaka, K.; Mendis, P. Design and Development of Weatherproof Seals for Prefabricated Construction: A Methodological Approach. Buildings 2018, 8, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlowski, K.; Shanaka, K.; Mendis, P. Manufacturing, Modeling, Implementation and Evaluation of a Weatherproof Seal for Prefabricated Construction. Buildings 2018, 8, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, S.; Wei, J.; Zhou, X. Study on HAM Coupling Migration of Complex Air-Tightness Defect Structure Caused by Air Leakage. Energy Built Environ. 2021, 4, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Ren, Z.; Ji, T.; Bi, H.; Xu, M. Mechanically Strong, Cost-Efficiency, and Sustainable Fully Wood-Derived Structural Materials by Micro/Nanoscale Design. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 14, 3043–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiloul, A.; Blanchet, P.; Boudaud, C. Mechanical Characterization of Corrugated Wood-Based Panels and Potential Structural Applications in a Building. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 391, 131896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Innella, F.; Bai, Y.; Zhu, Z. Mechanical Performance of Building Modules during Road Transportation. Eng. Struct. 2020, 223, 111185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hostikka, S.; Janardhan, R.K.; Riaz, U.; Sikanen, T. Fire-Induced Pressure and Smoke Spreading in Mechanically Ventilated Buildings with Air-Tight Envelopes. Fire Saf. J. 2017, 91, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seddik Hassan, A.M.; Aly, R.M.H.; Alzahrani, A.M.Y.; Abd El-razik, M.M.; Shoukry, H. Improving Fire Resistance and Energy Performance of Fast Buildings Made of Hollow Polypropylene Blocks. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 46, 103830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orabi, M.A.; Khan, A.A.; Jiang, L.; Yarlagadda, T.; Torero, J.; Usmani, A. Integrated Nonlinear Structural Simulation of Composite Buildings in Fire. Eng. Struct. 2022, 252, 113593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eremina, T.; Korolchenko, D. Fire Protection of Building Constructions with the Use of Fire-Retardant Intumescent Compositions. Buildings 2020, 10, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanchet, P.; Perez, C.; Roberto, M. Cabral wood building construction: Trends and opportunities in structural and envelope systems. Curr. For. Rep. 2023; In Press. [Google Scholar]
- Iringova, A.; Vandlickova, D.; Divis, M. Impact of the Fire and Acoustic Protection on the Composition of Lightweight Wood-Based Cladding Envelopes in the Construction of Apartment Buildings in Passive Standard. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayanleye, S.; Udele, K.; Nasir, V.; Zhang, X.; Militz, H. Durability and Protection of Mass Timber Structures: A Review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 46, 103731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winandy, J.E.; Morrell, J.J. Improving the Utility, Performance, and Durability of Wood- and Bio-Based Composites. Ann. For. Sci. 2017, 74, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Mursalin, Y.; Lin, G.; Lin, C. Supply Chain Cost Prediction for Prefabricated Building Construction under Uncertainty. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 4580651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhandari, S.; Riggio, M.; Jahedi, S.; Fischer, E.C.; Muszynski, L.; Luo, Z. A Review of Modular Cross Laminated Timber Construction: Implications for Temporary Housing in Seismic Areas. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 63, 105485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akmam Syed Zakaria, S.; Gajendran, T.; Rose, T.; Brewer, G. Contextual, Structural and Behavioural Factors Influencing the Adoption of Industrialised Building Systems: A Review. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 2017, 14, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W.M.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I.; Yeung, J.F.Y.; Chan, J.H.L. Risk Ranking and Analysis in Target Cost Contracts: Empirical Evidence from the Construction Industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 751–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobotka, A.; Czarnigowska, A. Analysis of Supply System Models for Planning Construction Project Logistics. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2005, 11, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowyer, J.; Bratkovich, S.; Howe, J.; Fernholz, K.; Frank, M.; Hanessian, S.; Groot, H.; Pepke, E.D. Modern Tall Wood Buildings: Opportunities for Innovation; Dovetail Partners Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Z.; Shen, G.Q.; Xue, X. Critical Review of the Research on the Management of Prefabricated Construction. Habitat. Int. 2014, 43, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foraboschi, P. Specific Structural Mechanics That Underpinned the Construction of Venice and Dictated Venetian Architecture. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 78, 169–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2020; Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- SPI Health and Safety Construction Workers: 3 or 4 Times More Accidents|SPI Health and Safety. Available online: https://www.spi-s.com/en/blog/ohs-leadership/construction-workers-3-or-4-times-more-accidents (accessed on 23 March 2022).
- Awcbc. National Work Injury Disease and Fatality Statistics-2017–2019; Awcbc: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bavafa, A.; Mahdiyar, A.; Marsono, A.K. Identifying and Assessing the Critical Factors for Effective Implementation of Safety Programs in Construction Projects. Saf. Sci. 2018, 106, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambatese, J.A.; Behm, M.; Hinze, J.W. Viability of Designing for Construction Worker Safety. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 1029–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamali, M.; Hewage, K.; Milani, A.S. Life Cycle Sustainability Performance Assessment Framework for Residential Modular Buildings: Aggregated Sustainability Indices. Build. Environ. 2018, 138, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, R.M.; Ogden, R.G.; Bergin, R. Application of Modular Construction in High-Rise Buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 2012, 18, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mapar, M.; Jafari, M.J.; Mansouri, N.; Arjmandi, R.; Azizinejad, R.; Ramos, T.B. Sustainability Indicators for Municipalities of Megacities: Integrating Health, Safety and Environmental Performance. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocca, M. Health and Well-Being in Indoor Work Environments: A Review of Literature. In Proceedings of the 2017 17th IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2017 1st IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe, EEEIC/I and CPS Europe 2017, Milan, Italy, 6–9 June 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwok, K.C.S.; Hitchcock, P.A.; Burton, M.D. Perception of Vibration and Occupant Comfort in Wind-Excited Tall Buildings. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2009, 97, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, F.; Jafari, M. Investigation Approaches to Quantify Wind-Induced Load and Response of Tall Buildings: A Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 62, 102376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husin, H.N.; Nawawi, A.H.; Ismail, F.; Khalil, N. Preliminary Survey of Integrated Safety Elements into Post Occupancy Evaluation for Malaysia’s Low Cost Housing. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 36, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, A.M.M. The Quest for Quality in Public Housing Projects: A Behaviour-to-Outcome Paradigm. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 21, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vischer, J.C. O Conceito de Conforto Ambiental No Desempenho Do Ambiente de Trabalho. Ambiente Construído 2008, 7, 21–34. [Google Scholar]
- Mansor, R.; Sheau-Ting, L. A Measurement Model of Occupant Well-Being for Malaysian Office Building. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Energy Agency. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report 2019—Analysis; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chong, D.; Zhu, N.; Luo, W.; Zhang, Z. Broadening Human Thermal Comfort Range Based on Short-Term Heat Acclimation. Energy 2019, 176, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, J.; Fan, J. Advanced Thermal Regulating Materials and Systems for Energy Saving and Thermal Comfort in Buildings. Mater. Today Energy 2022, 24, 100925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Weight | Definition |
---|---|
1 | Equal Importance |
3 | Moderate Importance |
5 | Strong Importance |
7 | Very Strong |
9 | Absolute Importance |
2; 4; 6; 8 | Intermediate Values |
n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 |
Structures | Envelopes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria | Weight | Ranking | Weight | Ranking |
Technical properties | 0.100 | 3rd | 0.105 | 3rd |
Site condition and logistics | 0.386 | 2nd | 0.301 | 2nd |
Social benefits | 0.512 | 1st | 0.592 | 1st |
Consistency Ratio | 0.0008 | 0.0012 |
Criteria | Weights of Criteria | Subcriteria | Consistency Ratio | Weight of Subcriteria | Global Priority Weight | Overall Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical properties | 0.100 | Mechanical properties | 0.09 | 0.220 | 0.022 | 8th |
Durability | 0.093 | 0.009 | 10th | |||
Fire performance | 0.207 | 0.020 | 9th | |||
Watertightness | 0.478 | 0.047 | 7th | |||
Site condition and logistics | 0.386 | Ease use | 0.05 | 0.176 | 0.067 | 6th |
Availability of materials | 0.256 | 0.098 | 5th | |||
Location, shape, and height of the building | 0.567 | 0.218 | 2nd | |||
Social benefits | 0.512 | Occupant health | 0.08 | 0.238 | 0.121 | 4th |
Comfort, satisfaction, and well-being of the building | 0.303 | 0.155 | 3rd | |||
Safety and security of building occupants | 0.458 | 0.234 | 1st |
Criteria | Weights of Criteria | Subcriteria | Consistency Ratio | Weight of Subcriteria | Global Priority Weight | Overall Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical properties | 0.105 | Mechanical properties | 0.05 | 0.007 | 0.021 | 9th |
Durability | 0.116 | 0.012 | 10th | |||
Fire performance | 0.296 | 0.031 | 8th | |||
Watertightness | 0.508 | 0.053 | 6th | |||
Site condition and logistics | 0.301 | Ease use | 0.06 | 0.147 | 0.044 | 7th |
Availability of materials | 0.260 | 0.078 | 5th | |||
Location, shape, and height of the building | 0.592 | 0.178 | 3rd | |||
Social benefits | 0.592 | Occupant health | 0.05 | 0.223 | 0.132 | 4th |
Comfort, satisfaction, and well-being of the building | 0.426 | 0.252 | 1st | |||
Safety and security of building occupants | 0.349 | 0.206 | 2nd |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cabral, M.R.; Blanchet, P. Analytical Hierarchical Process as a Multicriteria Decision Tool in Material Selection for Prefabricated Wood Buildings. Buildings 2023, 13, 2973. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122973
Cabral MR, Blanchet P. Analytical Hierarchical Process as a Multicriteria Decision Tool in Material Selection for Prefabricated Wood Buildings. Buildings. 2023; 13(12):2973. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122973
Chicago/Turabian StyleCabral, Matheus R., and Pierre Blanchet. 2023. "Analytical Hierarchical Process as a Multicriteria Decision Tool in Material Selection for Prefabricated Wood Buildings" Buildings 13, no. 12: 2973. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122973
APA StyleCabral, M. R., & Blanchet, P. (2023). Analytical Hierarchical Process as a Multicriteria Decision Tool in Material Selection for Prefabricated Wood Buildings. Buildings, 13(12), 2973. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122973