IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i22p9977-d1521839.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Selection Model of Compositions and Proportions of Additive Lime Mortars for Restoration of Ancient Chinese Buildings Based on TOPSIS

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaolu Long

    (School of Architecture and Design, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China)

  • Lizhi Liu

    (Xiangtan Economic and Technological Development Zone Management Committee, Xiangtan 411201, China)

  • Qi Liu

    (School of Architecture and Design, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China)

Abstract

To improve the accuracy of choosing restoration materials for repairing ancient Chinese buildings and to mitigate the risk of decision-making, this paper establishes a novel selection model of compositions and proportions of additive lime mortars for the restoration of ancient Chinese buildings. The selection process is influenced by multi-criteria and determined by a group of experts through comprehensive judgment. Thus, it is a multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) problem. Firstly, considering subjective and objective criteria simultaneously, establish a selection index system for compositions and proportions of additive lime mortars in the restoration of ancient Chinese buildings. Secondly, applying a neutrosophic set to characterize experts’ evaluation information and quantify the evaluation information. Thirdly, the best–worst method (BWM) is implemented to obtain criteria weights, and the entropy weight method is utilized to obtain index weights. Finally, obtaining the priority of each alternative solution by using the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) ranking technique. The practicality of the proposed model was demonstrated through a specific case of the selection of repair materials for a decorative window in one ancient Chinese building. The comparative analysis was carried out to verify the reliability and validity of the model.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaolu Long & Lizhi Liu & Qi Liu, 2024. "A Selection Model of Compositions and Proportions of Additive Lime Mortars for Restoration of Ancient Chinese Buildings Based on TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:22:p:9977-:d:1521839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/22/9977/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/22/9977/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaolu. Long & Lizhi. Liu & Can. Xiao & Pengfei. Cheng & Chengxun. Fu, 2020. "Restoration Methods Selection for Wood Components of Chinese Ancient Architectures Based on TODIM with Single-Valued Neutrosophic Sets," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-14, May.
    2. Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji & Sepas Arzaghi & Gintaras Stauskis & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2018. "A Hybrid Fuzzy BWM-COPRAS Method for Analyzing Key Factors of Sustainable Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-26, May.
    3. Fernando G. Branco & Maria de Lurdes Belgas & Cátia Mendes & Luís Pereira & José Marcos Ortega, 2021. "Mechanical Performance of Lime Mortar Coatings for Rehabilitation of Masonry Elements in Old and Historical Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Zhongwei Gao & Donghui Ma & Wei Wang & Xiaodong Guo & Qingzi Ge, 2018. "Development and Application of Ancient Timber Buildings Structural Condition Assessment Model Based on a Fuzzy Matter-Element Model that Includes Asymmetric Proximity," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-12, September.
    5. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    6. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    7. Mahmoud Sodangi & Zaheer Abbas Kazmi, 2020. "Integrated Evaluation of the Impediments to the Adoption of Coconut Palm Wood as a Sustainable Material for Building Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dragan Pamučar & Fatih Ecer & Goran Cirovic & Melfi A. Arlasheedi, 2020. "Application of Improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in Real-World Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Sarbast Moslem & Muhammet Gul & Danish Farooq & Erkan Celik & Omid Ghorbanzadeh & Thomas Blaschke, 2020. "An Integrated Approach of Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Weiliang Zhang & Sifeng Liu & Junliang Du & Liangyan Tao & Wenjie Dong & Muhammad Nawaz, 2024. "The evaluation of pension institution service quality in China: a novel method based on BWM and Grey-TOPSIS," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(3), pages 1562-1581, September.
    4. Mu-Hsin Chang & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2019. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Strategic Alliance Partners in the Green Biopharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    6. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    7. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Pushparenu Bhattacharjee & Syed Abou Iltaf Hussain & V. Dey & U. K. Mandal, 2023. "Failure mode and effects analysis for submersible pump component using proportionate risk assessment model: a case study in the power plant of Agartala," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(5), pages 1778-1798, October.
    11. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    12. Yuanxin Liu & FengYun Li & Yi Wang & Xinhua Yu & Jiahai Yuan & Yuwei Wang, 2018. "Assessing the Environmental Impact Caused by Power Grid Projects in High Altitude Areas Based on BWM and Vague Sets Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    13. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    14. Ghadimi, Pezhman & Donnelly, Oisin & Sar, Kubra & Wang, Chao & Azadnia, Amir Hossein, 2022. "The successful implementation of industry 4.0 in manufacturing: An analysis and prioritization of risks in Irish industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    15. Liu, Xiao & Li, Ming-Yang, 2024. "Sustainable service product design method: Focus on customer demands and triple bottom line," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    16. Junli Zhang & Guoteng Wang & Zheng Xu & Zheren Zhang, 2022. "A Comprehensive Evaluation Method and Strengthening Measures for AC/DC Hybrid Power Grids," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Hamzeh Soltanali & Mehdi Khojastehpour & Siamak Kheybari, 2023. "Evaluating the critical success factors for maintenance management in agro-industries using multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 949-968, June.
    18. Yossi Hadad & Baruch Keren & Dima Alberg, 2023. "An Expert System for Ranking and Matching Electric Vehicles to Customer Specifications and Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, May.
    19. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "Better decisions with less cognitive load: The Parsimonious BWM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    20. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:22:p:9977-:d:1521839. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.