Comparison of passive house construction types using analytic hierarchy process

Kuzman, Manja Kitek; Grošelj, Petra; Ayrılmış, Nadir; Zbašnik-Senegačnik, Martina

doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.020

Cited by 62 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Group decision making is becoming an increasingly important part of multiple criteria decision making (Ahmad, Saman, Mohamad, Mohamad, & Awang, 2014;De Brucker, Macharis, & Verbeke, 2013;Ishizaka & Labib, 2011a;Kuzman, Grošelj, Ayrilmis, & Zbasnik-Senegacnik, 2013;Ren, Fedele, Mason, Manzardo, & Scipioni, 2013;Skorupski, 2014;Wang, Peng, Zhang, & Chen, 2014;Yu & Lai, 2011). Multiple stakeholders can contribute a variety of experiences, expertise and perspectives, and a group can better deal with the complexity of the problem than a single decision maker (DM).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process

Grošelj

Stirn

Ayrılmış

et al. 2015

Expert Systems with Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tGroup decision making is an important part of multiple criteria decision making and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The aim of this paper was to compare group AHP methods. Seven simple group AHP aggregation techniques that could be attractive for applications selected from the vast array of group AHP models proposed in the literature were selected for evaluation. We developed three new measures of evaluation: group Euclidean distance, group minimum violations, and distance between weights for the purpose of evaluation. The results of seven group AHP methods of the theoretical example were evaluated by three new evaluation measures, satisfactory index and fitting performance index. Furthermore, a case study of a decision making problem from the construction engineering field was performed and nine group AHP aggregation techniques, seven of them formerly presented and two new two stage group approaches were applied. Finally, the case study was evaluated using all five measures for each of the nine group decision making methods. The results showed that not all group AHP methods are equally convenient and that the selection of the method depended on the specific application.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process

Grošelj

Stirn

Ayrılmış

et al. 2015

Expert Systems with Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various methods are available for supporting complex decisions in construction. Some of them are as follows: Kaklauskas et al (2012) proposed a Passive House model for quantitative and qualitative analyses; in Kuzman et al (2013) AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) was used to compare passive house construction types; Brown et al (2013) used decision making for assessing renovation; in the work of Bucoń and Sobotka (2015), the alternatives of residential building repair are evaluated, while Cannemi et al (2014), Bhanot and Jha (2012) used decision making as a support tool for policy making; in Kalibatas et al (2011Kalibatas et al ( , 2012, Zavadskas et al (2016) the indoor environment was evaluated from the perspective of an ideal alternative; in the work of Chen et al (2014) MADM was used for evaluating the impacts of VOC emissions in the US single-family houses; Hopfe et al (2013) assessed building performance; in Książek et al (2015) decision-making in construction project development was described; in Zagorskas et al (2014) MADM was used for evaluating thermal insulation alternatives of historical brick buildings in the Baltic Sea Region and Augutis et al (2014) used MADM for assessing energy infrastructure. The papers of Zavadskas et al (2014), Mardani et al (2015aMardani et al ( , 2015b presented the surveys of MADM methods.…”

Section: Using Madm Methods In Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting the most effective alternative of waterproofing membranes for multifunctional inverted flat roofs

Kalibatas

Kovaitis

2017

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many various methods, techniques and materials for constructing multifunctional inverted flat roofs now. However, in practice, the constructed roofs of this type often have various defects, whose elimination is rather costly. To solve this problem, the analysis of multifunctional inverted flat roofs has been performed and their advantages and disadvantages, as well as building defects and mistakes made in the course of construction, have been demonstrated. Damp-proofing materials available on the market for making waterproofing membranes for multifunctional inverted flat roofs have been evaluated. The problem of choosing the most effective membrane alternative for the investigated type of roofs is solved by analysing ten alternatives with the help of multi-criteria evaluation method, SAW and three game theory rules determined by Hurwicz, Laplace and Bayes, as well as LEVI 3.0 program. The analysis of the results has shown that the alternative No. 5 is the best membrane alternative among the ten considered options.

show abstract

“…They found that when using variance analysis there were four major structural parameters influencing energy consumption and attainment of the satisfactory level of thermal comfort: (i) building shape coefficient, (ii) orientation of the building, (iii) glazing ratio of the southern wall, and (iv) the structure of interior partitions. " Kuzman et al [15] compare different construction materials, including different types of construction for passive houses (e.g. wood farm, solid wood, aerated concrete, and brick).…”

Section: Related Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%