Optimal Construction Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

Authors: Masood Karamoozian, Zhang Hong

Abstract:

The necessity and complexity of the decision-making process and the interference of the various factors to make decisions and consider all the relevant factors in a problem are very obvious nowadays. Hence, researchers show their interest in multi-criteria decision-making methods. In this research, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods of multi-criteria decision-making have been used to solve the problem of optimal construction systems. Systems being evaluated in this problem include; Light Steel Frames (LSF), a case study of designs by Zhang Hong studio in the Southeast University of Nanjing, Insulating Concrete Form (ICF), Ordinary Construction System (OCS), and Precast Concrete System (PRCS) as another case study designs in Zhang Hong studio in the Southeast University of Nanjing. Crowdsourcing was done by using a questionnaire at the sample level (200 people). Questionnaires were distributed among experts in university centers and conferences. According to the results of the research, the use of different methods of decision-making led to relatively the same results. In this way, with the use of all three multi-criteria decision-making methods mentioned above, the PRCS was in the first rank, and the LSF system ranked second. Also, the PRCS, in terms of performance standards and economics, was ranked first, and the LSF system was allocated the first rank in terms of environmental standards.

Keywords: Multi-criteria decision making, AHP, SAW, TOPSIS.

References:

[1] Velasquez, M. and P.T. Hester, An analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 2013. 10(2): p. 56-66.
[2] Taylan, O., et al., Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 2014. 17: p. 105-116.
[3] Ustinovichius, L., E. Zavadkas, and V. Podvezko, Application of a quantitative multiple criteria decisions making (MCDM-1) approach to the analysis of investments in construction. Control and cybernetics, 2007. 36(1): p. 251.
[4] Wang, J.-J., et al., Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2009. 13(9): p. 2263-2278.
[5] Waris, M., et al., Criteria for the selection of sustainable onsite construction equipment. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 2014. 3(1): p. 96-110.
[6] Chen, Y., G.E. Okudan, and D.R. Riley, Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings. Automation in construction, 2010. 19(2): p. 235-244.
[7] Mahdi, I.M. and K. Alreshaid, Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Project Management, 2005. 23(7): p. 564-572.
[8] Zavadskas, E.K., et al., Contractor selection for construction works by applying SAW‐G and TOPSIS grey techniques. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2010. 11(1): p. 34-55.
[9] Saaty, T.L., Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 2008. 1(1): p. 83-98.
[10] Chou, S.-Y., Y.-H. Chang, and C.-Y. Shen, A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008. 189(1): p. 132-145.
[11] Afshari, A., M. Mojahed, and R.M. Yusuff, Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 2010. 1(5): p. 511.
[12] Opricovic, S. and G.-H. Tzeng, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 2004. 156(2): p. 445-455.
[13] Tong, L.-I., C.-H. Wang, and H.-C. Chen, Optimization of multiple responses using principal component analysis and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2005. 27(3-4): p. 407-414.
[14] Barros, V.V.B., Estruturas em light steel framing: projeto e dimensionamento em softwares 3D. 2017.
[15] Henriques, J., et al., Structural performance of light steel framing panels using screw connections subjected to lateral loading. Thin-Walled Structures, 2017. 121: p. 67-88.
[16] Stachniuk, W., Modular reinforced insulating concrete form. 2017, Google Patents.
[17] Beck, J.R. and M.D. Whitticar, Building construction systems and methods. 2010, Google Patents.
[18] Elliott, K.S. and C. Jolly, Multi-storey precast concrete framed structures. 2013: Wiley.
[19] Stanujkić, D., B. Đorđević, and M. Đorđević, Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: A case of ranking Serbian banks. Serbian Journal of Management, 2013. 8(2): p. 213-241.
[20] Barlett, J.E., J.W. Kotrlik, and C.C. Higgins, Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal, 2001. 19(1): p. 43.
[21] Rahagiyanto, A., A. Basuki, and R. Sigit, Moment Invariant Features Extraction for Hand Gesture Recognition of Sign Language based on SIBI. EMITTER International Journal of Engineering Technology, 2017. 5(1): p. 119-138.
[22] Bergland, O. and F. Mirza. Latitudinal Effect on Energy Savings from Daylight Saving Time. in Meeting the Energy Demands of Emerging Economies, 40th IAEE International Conference, June 18-21, 2017. 2017. International Association for Energy Economics.
[23] Saaty, T.L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 1977. 15(3): p. 234-281.
[24] Shannon, C.E., A mathematical theory of communication. Bell system technical journal, 1948. 27(3): p. 379-423.
[25] Qian, G., et al. Similarity between Euclidean and cosine angle distance for nearest neighbor queries. in Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing. 2004. ACM.
[26] Seawright, J. and J. Gerring, Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 2008. 61(2): p. 294-308.
[27] Saari, D.G. and V.R. Merlin, The Copeland method. Economic Theory, 1996. 8(1): p. 51-76.
[28] Fishburn, P.C. and W.V. Gehrlein, Borda's rule, positional voting, and Condorcet's simple majority principle. Public Choice, 1976. 28(1): p. 79-88.
[29] Lansdowne, Z.F. and B.S. Woodward, Applying the Borda ranking method. Air Force Journal of Logistics, 1996. 20(2): p. 27-29.