Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for selection of optimum passive design strategy

被引:0
|
作者
Rachman, Arinda P. [1 ]
Ichwania, Chalila [1 ]
Mangkuto, Rizki A. [2 ]
Pradipta, Justin [3 ]
Koerniawan, M. Donny [4 ]
Sarwono, Joko [2 ]
机构
[1] Inst Teknol Bandung, Fac Ind Technol, Engn Phys Program, Jl Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
[2] Inst Teknol Bandung, Fac Ind Technol, Built Environm Performance Engn Res Grp, Jl Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
[3] Inst Teknol Bandung, Fac Ind Technol, Engn Phys Res Grp, Jl Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
[4] Inst Teknol Bandung, Sch Architecture Planning & Policy Dev, Bldg Technol Res Grp, Jl Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
关键词
Passive design; Comparison; Sensitivity analysis; Criteria weights variation; OPTIMIZATION; BUILDINGS; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114285
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
In the pursuit of achieving high-performance building design, the selection of the most suitable passive design strategies often involves the use of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods to address multiple conflicting criteria simultaneously. However, identifying the appropriate MCDM method for a specific building design context poses a challenge, as methods commonly effective in other contexts may not yield equivalent results. This study evaluates five MCDM methods (AHP, COPRAS, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and WSM) to understand their sensitivity in recommending the best solution. The considered criteria are energy demand, thermal comfort and daylight availability. The sensitivity analysis involves the impact of the variability of assigned weights on the rank shifting given by the considered MCDM method and the sensitivity of each criterion to weights variability. The findings reveal that implementing a fair-weight allocation leads to similar top 5 solutions among all MCDM methods. However, when a negative shift is applied to each criterion weight, AHP demonstrates greater robustness to weight variability compared to the other methods evaluated, while VIKOR is the most sensitive to weight variation.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection
    Richard Edgar Hodgett
    [J]. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2016, 85 : 1145 - 1157
  • [2] Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection
    Hodgett, Richard Edgar
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 85 (5-8): : 1145 - 1157
  • [3] A Comparison of the Multi-criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Selection of Researchers
    Kaya, Gulsum Kubra
    Ozturk, Fatih
    [J]. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING IN THE INTERNET-OF-THINGS WORLD, GJCIE 2020, 2022, : 147 - 159
  • [4] Drone selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods
    Khan, Muhammad Sohaib
    Shah, Syed Irtiza Ali
    Javed, Ali
    Qadri, Nafees Mumtaz
    Hussain, Nadeem
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF 2021 INTERNATIONAL BHURBAN CONFERENCE ON APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES (IBCAST), 2021, : 256 - 270
  • [5] A multi-criteria decision-making methodology for optimum selection of a solid modeller for design teaching and practice
    Okudan, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN, 2006, 17 (02) : 159 - 175
  • [6] MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS FOR SUPPLIER SELECTION: A LITERATURE REVIEW
    Yildiz, A.
    Yayla, A. Y.
    [J]. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 26 (02): : 158 - 177
  • [7] Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: A Case of Software Vendor Selection
    Rani, Anshul
    Mishra, Deepti
    Omerovic, Aida
    [J]. TEM JOURNAL-TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATICS, 2024, 13 (02): : 1218 - 1229
  • [8] COMPARISON OF THE MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS FOR MACHINE SELECTION PROBLEM
    Eraslan, Erguen
    Dagdeviren, Metin
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 38TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTERS AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, VOLS 1-3, 2008, : 642 - 647
  • [9] Comparison of Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods for Selection of Handmade Carpets
    Gupta, Shravan Kumar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS, 2022, 19 (02) : 658 - 668
  • [10] Comparison of Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Methods for Urban Sewer Network Plan Selection
    Wu, Zhen
    Abdul-Nour, Georges
    [J]. CIVILENG, 2020, 1 (01):