Comparison of Different Construction Types for Public Buildings Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Abstract:

Considering the growing importance of energy-efficient building methods, timber construction will play an increasingly important role in the future. In order to determine advantages and disadvantages of using wood as a leading constructional material, different construction types were compared: solid wood, wood-frame, concrete, and brick construction. To quantify the comparisons the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied. AHP enables the inclusion of various parameters, including descriptive ones, in a mathematical model through which the importance of each construction criterion forming part of the system can be calculated in order to provide objective decisions for construction. Analysis revealed that the top ranked criteria in decision-making include embodied energy, construction cost and design. On comparing different construction types the wood-frame construction, which can have very low or negative carbon footprint, was considered as the most suitable option for public building.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 875-877)
• Pages: 910-916
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.875-877.910
• Online since: February 2014
• Authors: Manja Kitek Kuzman, Srečko Vratuša, Petra Grošelj
• Keywords: Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP), Building Criteria, Public Building, Wood Construction

References

[1] Johnson, K.: (1990) Timber bridge design, engineering and construction manual. 4th ed. Wheeler Consolidated. St. Louse Park, MN, 1000 pp.

[2] Rebitzer et al.,: Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environmenta International 30(5): 701-720, (2004).

[3] Assefa, G. et al.,: Quality versus impact: Comparing the environmental efficiency of building properties using the EcoEffect tool. Building and Environment, 45: 1095-1103 (2010).

DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.001

[4] Roberts, D.V.: Sustainable development – A challenge for the engineering profession. In Ellis, MD ed. The role of engineering in sustainable development. American Association of Engineering Societies, Washington DC: 44–61, (1994).

[5] Joseph, P., Tretsiakova-McNally, S.: Sustainable Non-Metallic Building Materials. Environmental Sustainability and the Built Environment. Sustainability 2(2): 400-427, (2010).

DOI: 10.3390/su2020400

[6] Gold, S., Rubik, F.: Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses-selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17: 303-309, (2009).

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.07.001

[7] John, S. et al.: The carbon footprint of multi-story timber building compared with conventional materials. World conference on timber engineering 2010, 9 pp., (2010).

[8] Oblak, L., Jelačić, D., Motik, D., Grladinović, T.: A model for stock management in a wood-industry company. Wood Research, 53(1): 105-118, (2008).

[9] Nassar, K., Thabet, W., Beliveau, Y.: A procedure for multi-criteria selection of building assemblies. Automation in Construction, 12: 543-560, (2003).

DOI: 10.1016/s0926-5805(03)00007-4

[10] Frenette, C.D., Derome, D., Beauregard, R., Salenikovich, A.: Identification of multiple criteria for the evaluation of light-frame wood wall assemblies. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 1(4): 221-236, (2008).

DOI: 10.1080/19401490802527661

[11] Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGrave-Hill, New York (1980), 287 pp.

[12] Smith, R., Bush, J.R., Schmoldt, L.D.: A hierarchical model and analysis of factors affecting the adoption of timber as a bridge material. Wood and Fiber Science, 27(3): 225-238, (1995).

[13] Lipušček, I., Oblak, L., Zadnik Stirn, L.: Model for classifying wood products according to environment burdening during the process of manufacturing. Wood Research, 48 (4): 43-53, (2003).

[14] Chauhan, K.A., Shah, C.N., Rao, V.R.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Decision-Support System in the Housing Sector: A Case Study. World Applied Sciences Journal 3(4): 609-613, (2008).

[15] Yang, Y., Li, B., Yao, R.: A method of identifying weighting indicators of energy efficiency assessment in Chinese residential buildings. Energy Policy, 38: 7687-7697, (2010).

DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.018

[16] Wong, J., Li, H.: Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment, 43 (1): 108-125, (2006).

DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.019

[17] Liu et al.,: A method to weight three categories of adaptive thermal comfort. Energy and Buildings, 47: 312-320, (2011).

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.007

[18] Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1994), 527 pp.

[19] Forman, E.H.: Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 48: 153-155, (1990).

DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90072-j

[20] Gupta, G.U., Clarke, R.E.: Theory and Applications of the Delphi Technique: A Bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53: 185-211, (1996).

DOI: 10.1016/s0040-1625(96)00094-7

[21] Salazar, J., Meil, J.: Prospects for carbon-neutral housing: the influence of greater wood use on the carbon footprint of a single-family residence, Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009): 1563–1571.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.06.006