IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/otamic/v14y2022i1p2656-2665n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-criteria decision-making approach for selecting a structural system of an industrial facility

Author

Listed:
  • Zumrut Irem Bayram

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Ege University (Ege Universitesi), Izmir, Turkey.)

  • Baran Hamim Burak

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Ege University (Ege Universitesi), Izmir, Turkey)

  • Ozbalta Turkan Goksal

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Ege University (Ege Universitesi), Izmir, Turkey)

Abstract

Selection of an appropriate structural system for an industrial facility is a difficult task for decision makers since it is the essential component, and it is hard to satisfy the owner's demands as well as the legal requirements. There are many conflicting preferences that have to be considered to assess the performance of the structural system alternatives. Decision support systems (DSSs) such as multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are useful in making an objective and rational choice. It is important to use MCDM methods in order to analytically evaluate different factors affecting the structural system selection. To address these challenges, the selection of the structural system of an industrial facility project in Turkey was carried out by applying Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) MCDM methods. Eight evaluation criteria were determined for the selection process within the scope of the study, which are project cost, project duration, project lifetime, labour and equipment requirement, recycling opportunities, resistance to environmental effects, suitability for installation and natural lighting needs. Prefabricated reinforced concrete (PRC), on-site reinforced concrete (RC) and steel structural system alternatives were evaluated according to each criterion by a survey study conducted by 193 civil engineer participants. Using the AHP and TOPSIS methods, it is determined that the most suitable alternative for industrial facilities is the steel structural framing system. The results were argued with the design team, and they confirmed that MCDM methods could be easily integrated in selecting the most appropriate structural system.

Suggested Citation

  • Zumrut Irem Bayram & Baran Hamim Burak & Ozbalta Turkan Goksal, 2022. "Multi-criteria decision-making approach for selecting a structural system of an industrial facility," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 2656-2665, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:otamic:v:14:y:2022:i:1:p:2656-2665:n:7
    DOI: 10.2478/otmcj-2022-0010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2022-0010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/otmcj-2022-0010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sung Kin Pun & Chunlu Liu & Craig Langston, 2006. "Case study of demolition costs of residential buildings," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(9), pages 967-976.
    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. Eduardo Vázquez-López & Federico Garzia & Roberta Pernetti & Jaime Solís-Guzmán & Madelyn Marrero, 2020. "Assessment Model of End-of-Life Costs and Waste Quantification in Selective Demolitions: Case Studies of Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, August.

    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:vrs:otamic:v:14:y:2022:i:1:p:2656-2665:n:7. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.