IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i17p13087-d1229202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection of a Sustainable Structural Floor System for an Office Building Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Faris A. AlFaraidy

    (Department of Building Engineering, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34343, Saudi Arabia)

  • Kishore Srinivasa Teegala

    (Electrical & Electronics Engineering, GMRIT, Rajam 532127, India)

  • Gaurav Dwivedi

    (Energy Centre, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462003, India)

Abstract

The integration of green building technology is currently regarded as a critical step towards a sustainable future because it is a means of attaining sustainable development. It takes skill to combine a sustainable ecosystem with comfortable living areas to create eco-friendly building designs. The use of modern technologies can also enhance traditional methods for developing greener structures and thereby help maintain sustainable built environments. This research paper is intended to develop a selection framework to evaluate three different structural floor systems for a high-rise office building in Alhasa, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The three structural floor systems are as follows: a two-way ribbed slab system, a post-tension slab system, and a hollow core slab system. The main selection criteria used for the investigation in this paper are as follows: initial cost, running costs (operating and maintenance costs), salvage value, self-structural weight, and the possibility of utilities passage. A questionnaire survey was designed to collect the opinions of experts (project managers) regarding the relative importance of the different selection criteria, and these were used to determine the most suitable structural system for the office building. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was the tool used to determine the weights of the different criteria, and it was applied in combination with an Eigenvector analysis. Another objective of the investigation was to determine the utility preference values of the selection criteria by employing the multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) technique. The results showed that the most important criterion is utilities passage, which is followed by structural weight and then initial cost, salvage value, and running costs. From the results of this research, we conclude that the system with the highest total value is the post-tension slab system. The limitations of the study include the fact that it only investigated three concrete floor systems commonly used in office buildings in Saudi Arabia, and that it included only five selection criteria that were identified and evaluated by the experts.

Suggested Citation

  • Faris A. AlFaraidy & Kishore Srinivasa Teegala & Gaurav Dwivedi, 2023. "Selection of a Sustainable Structural Floor System for an Office Building Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:13087-:d:1229202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13087/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13087/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Calker, K.J. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Romero, C. & Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M., 2006. "Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 640-658, June.
    2. Ghada Elshafei & Dušan Katunský & Martina Zeleňáková & Abdelazim Negm, 2022. "Opportunities for Using Analytical Hierarchy Process in Green Building Optimization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-24, June.
    3. James S. Dyer, 2016. "Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT)," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 285-314, Springer.
    4. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    5. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    6. James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1992. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 645-654, May.
    7. Yovanna Elena Valencia-Barba & José Manuel Gómez-Soberón & María Consolación Gómez-Soberón & Fernando López-Gayarre, 2020. "An Epitome of Building Floor Systems by Means of LCA Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, 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. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Chin-Yi Chen & Jih-Jeng Huang, 2023. "Integrating Dynamic Bayesian Networks and Analytic Hierarchy Process for Time-Dependent Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    4. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Koray Altintas & Ozalp Vayvay & Sinan Apak & Emine Cobanoglu, 2020. "An Extended GRA Method Integrated with Fuzzy AHP to Construct a Multidimensional Index for Ranking Overall Energy Sustainability Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    6. Xue Ding & Mengling Qin & Linsen Yin & Dayong Lv & Yao Bai, 2023. "Research on FinTech Talent Evaluation Index System and Recruitment Strategy: Evidence From Shanghai in China," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, November.
    7. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    8. Raharjo, Hendry & Xie, Min & Brombacher, Aarnout C., 2009. "On modeling dynamic priorities in the analytic hierarchy process using compositional data analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(3), pages 834-846, May.
    9. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    11. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2013. "Patients’ Preferences and Priorities Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 59-70, January.
    12. Cieślak, Iwona, 2019. "Identification of areas exposed to land use conflict with the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Alessandro Golkar & Edward F. Crawley, 2014. "A Framework for Space Systems Architecture under Stakeholder Objectives Ambiguity," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 479-502, December.
    14. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    15. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    16. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    17. Debaleena Chatterjee & Protik Basu, 2023. "Classification Analysis for Brand Loyalty Determination," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 24(1), pages 106-120, February.
    18. Yuli L. León & Enrique Mu, 2021. "Organizational Mindfulness Assessment and Its Impact on Rational Decision Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-29, August.
    19. Akbari, Negar & Irawan, Chandra A. & Jones, Dylan F. & Menachof, David, 2017. "A multi-criteria port suitability assessment for developments in the offshore wind industry," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(PA), pages 118-133.
    20. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.

    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:15:y:2023:i:17:p:13087-:d:1229202. 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.