HOME | Contact Us

Current Issue

Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering - Vol. 15 , No. 3

[ Building Structures and Materials ]
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering - Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.549-555
ISSN: 1346-7581 (Print) 1347-2852 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2016
Received 03 Apr 2015 Accepted 11 Jul 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.549

A Decision-Making Process for Selecting Building Envelope Assemblies
Omer S. Deniz*, 1 ; Savas Ekinci2
1Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Turkey
2Research Assistant, Faculty of Architecture, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Turkey

Correspondence to : *Omer S. Deniz, Assistant Professor Dr., Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Findikli 34427, Istanbul, Turkey Tel: +90-212-2521600 / 279 Fax: +90-212-2517567 E-mail: omersdeniz@gmail.com


Building Envelope (BE) design is a decision-making process that involves evaluating and selecting BE assemblies. In this study, a systematic decision-making process is developed for selecting BE assemblies in the BE design process. BE systems are composed of various assemblies, and each one must have certain attributes to satisfy several expected functions. Therefore, the selection problem of an Envelope Assembly may be considered a Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) problem. MADM methods can be used to select assemblies based on qualitative and quantitative attributes. Feasible alternatives are selected among all possible alternatives. Next, the relative importance of attributes are determined with the AHP method and alternatives are ranked with the TOPSIS method. A case study tests applicability of the proposed process. The proposed decision-making process can help designers achieve consistent results with preliminary information for BE assembly selection problems.

Keywords: building envelope, envelope assemblies, assembly selection, AHP, TOPSIS

1. Chen, C.T. (2000) Extensions of the TOPSİS for Group Decision Making Under Fuzzy Environment, Fuzzy Sets&Systems, 114: 1-9.
2. Deng, H., Yeh, C.H., Willis, R.J. (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights, Computers and Operations Research, 27 (10), pp.963-973.
3. Deniz, O.S. (1999) In Multi Storey Housing Design, a Decision Making Approach Oriented to the Selection of Building Elements that will Meet the Flexibility Demands of the Users, Ph.D., Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul.
4. Gololov, I., Yezioro, A. (2007) A Computer System for Multi-Criteria Comparative Evaluation of Building Envelopes, IBPSA, International Conference on Building Simulation, Beijing, China.
5. Gowri, K. (1991) Knowledge-Based System Approach to Building Envelope Design, Ph.D., Concordia University, Montreal.
6. Hobbs B. F. (1980) A comparison of weighting methods in power plant siting, Decision Sciences, 11: 725-37.
7. Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
8. Lin, M.C., Wang, C.C., Chen, M.S., Chang, C.A. (2008) Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process, Computers in Industry, 59(1), pp.17-31.
9. Nassar, K. A. (1999) Framework for the Selection and Generation of Building Assemblies, PhD, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA.
10. Nassar, K., Thabet, W., Beliveau, Y. (2003) A Procedure for Multi-Criteria Selection of Building Assemblies, Automation in Construction, (12), pp.543-560.
11. Ramanathan, R. (1997) Stochastic decision making using multiplicative AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 97, pp.543-549.
12. Rao, R.V. (2007) Decision making in the manufacturing environment using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. Springer, London.
13. Rivard, H., Bedard, C., Fazio, P., Ha, K.H. (1995) Functional Analysis of the Preliminary Building Envelope Design Process, Building and Environment (30; 3) 391-401.
14. Saaty, T.L. (1980) The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
15. Saaty, T.L. (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks, RWS, PA.
16. Straube, J. and Burnett, E. (2005) Building Science for Building Enclosures, Building Science Press.
17. Wang, M.K. and Hwang, K.P. (2011) Key factors for the successful evaluation and screening of managers of the intellectual property rights specialty, Expert Systems with Applications 38(9): 10794-10802.
18. Yurdakul, M. and Ic, Y.T. (2005) Development of a Performance Measurement Model for Manufacturing Companies Using the AHP and Topsis Approaches, International Journal of Production Research, (43: 21) 4609-4641.
19. Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., Tamosaitiene, J. (2008) Selection of the Effective Dwelling House Walls Applying Attributes Determined in Intervals, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, (14: 2) 85-93.