Open Access

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

Irem Bayram Zumrut
Irem Bayram Zumrut
, 
Hamim Burak Baran
Hamim Burak Baran
 and 
Turkan Goksal Ozbalta
Turkan Goksal Ozbalta
   | Oct 15, 2022
Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research Paper
Published Online: Oct 15, 2022
Page range: 2656 - 2665
Received: Jan 16, 2021
Accepted: Jul 28, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2022-0010
Keywords
© 2022 Irem Bayram Zumrut et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of research methodology.
Flowchart of research methodology.

Fig. 2

The structural design of the industrial facility.
The structural design of the industrial facility.

Fig. 3

Decision hierarchy of the selection problem.
Decision hierarchy of the selection problem.

Pairwise comparison scale (Saaty 1980).

Value of aij Definition
1 i and j are equally important
3 i is slightly more important than j
5 i is more important than j
7 i is strongly more important than j
9 i is absolutely more important than j
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgements

Collected data for structural system alternatives.

Alternatives C1 (Euro) C2 (day) C3 (year) C4 (score) C5 (score) C6 (score) C7 (score) C8 (score) Cα
On-site RC structural system 66,631.47 120 50 3.54 1.82 3.90 3.39 2.98 0.826
PRC structural system 60,403.60 100 60 3.31 2.71 3.41 3.35 3.49
Steel structural system 71,249.16 80 80 3.85 4.27 2.72 3.74 3.96

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the suitability for installation.

Suitability for installation On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 2 1/3
PRC structural system 1 1/2
Steel structural system 1

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the natural lighting needs.

Natural lighting needs On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 1/3 1/5
PRC structural system 1 1/2
Steel structural system 1

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the project duration.

Project duration On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 1/3 1/5
PRC structural system 1 1/3
Steel structural system 1

The results of the TOPSIS method.

Alternatives Si+ Si− Ci* Normalised Ci* Rankings
On-site RC structural system 0.068417 0.043787 0.390 0.274 3rd
PRC structural system 0.048043 0.035565 0.425 0.299 2nd
Steel structural system 0.043976 0.068460 0.609 0.427 1st

The pairwise comparison of the evaluation criteria.

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 5
C2 1 1/2 2 4 1/2 2 6
C3 1 3 4 3 2 7
C4 1 2 1/5 1/3 2
C5 1 1/6 1/4 2
C6 1 2 8
C7 1 4
C8 1

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the project cost.

Project cost On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 1/3 2
PRC structural system 1 4
Steel structural system 1

The decision matrix of the TOPSIS method.

Alternatives C1 (Euro) C2 (day) C3 (year) C4 (score) C5 (score) C6 (score) C7 (score) C8 (score)
Wi (weights) 0.218 0.133 0.212 0.058 0.047 0.191 0.114 0.027
On-site RC structural system 66,631.47 120 50 3.54 1.82 3.90 3.39 2.98
PRC structural system 60,403.60 100 60 3.31 2.71 3.41 3.35 3.49
Steel structural system 71,249.16 80 80 3.85 4.27 2.72 3.74 3.96

Random CI (Saaty and Ozdemir 2003).

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
RI 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.54

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the recycling opportunities.

Recycling opportunities On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 1/2 1/5
PRC structural system 1 1/3
Steel structural system 1

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the resistance to environmental effects.

Resistance to environmental effects On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 2 3
PRC structural system 1 2
Steel structural system 1

Results of the AHP method.

Alternatives Results (%) Rankings
On-site RC structural system 25.0 3rd
PRC structural system 32.9 2nd
Steel structural system 42.1 1st

Weights of the evaluation criteria.

No. Criteria Weights
1 Project cost 0.218
2 Project duration 0.133
3 Project lifetime 0.212
4 Labour and equipment requirement 0.058
5 Recycling opportunities 0.047
6 Resistance to environmental effects 0.191
7 Suitability for installation 0.114
8 Natural lighting needs 0.027

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the project lifetime.

Project lifetime On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 1/2 1/5
PRC structural system 1 1/3
Steel structural system 1

The pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to the labour and equipment requirement.

Labour and equipment requirement On-site RC structural system PRC structural system Steel structural system
On-site RC structural system 1 2 1/3
PRC structural system 1 1/2
Steel structural system 1
eISSN:
1847-6228
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Engineering, Introductions and Overviews, other
Journal RSS Feed