Yapı İnşasında Temel Kriterlerin Önem Seviyesinin AHP ve BAHP Yöntemleri ile Belirlenmesi

Year 2024, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 908 - 927, 26.12.2024

Serkan Yıldız , Sinan Güneş

https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1451408

Abstract

Binalardan öncelikli beklentiler güvenlik, maliyet etkinliği, estetik, dayanıklılık, işlevsellik ve sürdürülebilirliği kapsamaktadır. Bu kriterlerin karmaşıklığı ve potansiyel ödünleşimleri göz önüne alındığında, göreceli önemlerinin belirlenmesi, inşaat uygulamalarını optimize edilmiş sonuçlara doğru yönlendirebilir. Bu çalışma, bina yapımında bu temel kriterlerin önemini Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) ve Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (FAHP) yöntemleriyle değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. İlk olarak, her bir kriteri tanımlamak için yedi mühendislik uzmanı ile derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Daha sonra, 22 mimar ve mühendis kriterleri değerlendirmek için ikili karşılaştırmalar yapmış ve sonuçta bireysel karşılaştırma matrisleri elde edilmiştir. Bu matrisler geometrik ortalama yoluyla tek bir matriste toplanmış ve tutarlılık teyit edilmiştir. Analizler, güvenliğin en yüksek öncelik olduğunu, bunu dayanıklılığın izlediğini, diğer kriterlerin ise nispeten dengeli bir öneme sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. FAHP yöntemi, öznel yargıları hesaba katmak için bulanık mantık kullanarak değerlendirmeye sağlamlık katmıştır. Bulgular, tasarımcılar, endüstri profesyonelleri ve yükleniciler için değerli bilgiler sağlayarak bina kriterlerinin önceliklendirilmesinde bilinçli karar vermeyi desteklemektedir.

Keywords

Yapı inşası, emniyet, dayanıklılık, AHP, BAHP

Determination of the Importance Level of Basic Criteria in Building Construction with AHP and FAHP Methods

Abstract

The primary expectations from buildings include safety, cost-effectiveness, aesthetics, durability, functionality, and sustainability. Addressing these complex criteria and potential trade-offs requires determining their relative importance to guide construction practices. This study evaluates these criteria using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). Interviews with seven engineering experts helped define the criteria. Subsequently, 22 architects and engineers performed pairwise comparisons, producing individual matrices. These matrices were aggregated into a single matrix via geometric averaging, with consistency verified. Safety emerged as the highest priority, followed by durability, while the remaining criteria were balanced. FAHP enhanced robustness by integrating fuzzy logic to handle subjective judgments. The findings offer practical insights for designers, contractors, and industry professionals, aiding in informed decision-making and prioritization of building criteria.

Keywords

Building construction, safety, durability, AHP, FAHP

Thanks

The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was obtained with the decision numbered 04/17 taken at the meeting of Ankara University Ethics Committee dated 05/07/2024.

References

• Abidin, N. Z. (2010). Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International, 34(4), 421-426.
• Abudayyeh, O., Zidan, S. J., Yehia, S. & Randolph, D. (2007). Hybrid prequalification-based, innovative contracting model using AHP. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(2), 88–96.
• Aghimien, D. O., Aigbavboa, C. O. & Thwala, W. D. (2019). Microscoping the challenges of sustainable construction in developing countries. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1110-1128.
• Akadiri, P. O., Chinyio, E. A. & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2012). Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings, 2(2), 126-152.
• Akadiri, P. O., Olomolaiye, P. O. & Chinyio, E. A. (2013). Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Automation in Construction, 30, 113–125.
• Albayrak, Y. E. (2004). Performance-based multi-objective decision making in the service sector: Analytical hierarchy process application in banking performance evaluation (Doctoral thesis). Institute of Science and Technology, Istanbul University, Istanbul. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. Access Address (15.02.2024):https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp? id=DQrmOiz7e_8fMrkDRZW9hQ&no=Ibughl4seY0xK0Gatxr3OA
• Ali, H. H. & Al Nsairat, S. F. (2009). Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries–case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), 1053–1064.
• Alshamrani, O. S. (2022). Integrated LCA-LCC assessment model of offsite, onsite, and conventional construction systems. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 21(5), 2058-2080.
• Archisoup. (2023). The principles of architecture: The 10 essential rules of architectural design. Access Address (10.02.2024):https://www.archisoup.com/architecture-design- principles
• Architects’ Council of Europe. (2019). Achieving quality in the built environment. Access Address (10.02.2024):https://www.ace- cae.eu/fileadmin/New_Upload/5._Policies/
• Baby, S. (2013). AHP modeling for multicriteria decision-making and to optimise strategies for protecting coastal landscape resources. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(2), 218.
• Bainbridge, D. A. (2004). Sustainable building as appropriate technology. In J. Kennedy (Ed.), Building without borders: Sustainable construction for the global village (s. 55–84). Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
• Balasubramanian, S. & Shukla, V. (2017). Green supply chain management: An empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(1), 58-81.
• Barrett, P. S., Sexton, M. G. & Green, L. (1999). Integrated delivery systems for sustainable construction. Building Research & Information, 27(6), 397-404.
• Belay, S., Goedert, J., Woldesenbet, A. & Rokooei, S. (2022). AHP based multi criteria decision analysis of success factors to enhance decision making in infrastructure construction projects. Cogent Engineering, 9(1), 2043996.
• Bels, M. & Branco, P. (2017). Law and architecture: Courthouse architecture, searching for a new balance between representation and functionality. In Gephart W, Leko J (Ed.), Law and the arts. elective affinities and relationships of tension (s. 177-206). Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 177206.
• Blok, R., Herwijnen, F. V., Kozlowski, A. & Wolinski, S. (2003). Service life and life cycle of building structures. In Proc., COST C12 Seminar on Improvement of Building’s Structural Quality by New Technologies. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
• Chan, H. K., Sun, X. & Chung, S. H. (2019). When should fuzzy analytic hierarchy process be used instead of analytic hierarchy process? Decision Support Systems, 125, 113114.
• Chang, C. W., Wu, C. R. & Lin, H. L. (2009). Applying fuzzy hierarchy multiple attributes to construct an expert decision-making process. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7363-7368.
• Chang, P., & Swenson, A. (2023). Construction. Access Address (01.11.2023):https://www.britannica.com/technology/construction
• Cheung, S. O., Suen, H. C. H., Ng, S. T. & Leung, M. Y. (2004). Convergent views of neutrals and users about alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(3), 88–96.
• Chou, J. S., Pham, A. D. & Wang, H. (2013). Bidding strategy to support decision-making by integrating fuzzy AHP and regression-based simulation. Automation in Construction, 35, 517–527.
• Dağdeviren, M., Diyar, A., & Mustafa, K. (2004). Analytic hierarchy process and its application in job evaluation process. Gazi University Journal of Engineering and Architecture Faculty, 19(2). Access Address (15.02.2024):https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/gazimmfd/issue/6660/88 912
• Dalal, J., Mohapatra, P. K. & Chandra Mitra, G. (2010). Prioritization of rural roads: AHP in group decision. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 17(2), 135–158.
• Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., Owusu, E. K., Pärn, E. & Edwards, D. J. (2019). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), 436–452.
• Designingbuildings. (2020). Aesthetics and architecture. Access Address (10.02.2024):https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Aesthetics_and_architecture
• Designingbuildings. (2021). Durability. Access Address (11.02.2024):https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Durability
• Designingbuildings. (2023). The history of buildings. Access Address (10.02.2024):https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/The_history_of _buildings
• Dias, A. & Ioannou, P. G. (1996). Company and project evaluation model for privately promoted infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(1), 71–82.
• Doloi, H. (2008). Application of AHP in improving construction productivity from a management perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 26(8), 841–854.
• El-Sayegh, S. M. (2009). Multi-criteria decision support model for selecting the appropriate construction management at risk firm. Construction Management and Economics, 27(4), 385–398.
• Golden, B. L., Wasil, E. A., & Harker, P. T. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process. Applications and Studies, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2(1), 1-273.
• Gunasinghe, M., De Silva, S., & De Silva, S. (2017). A categorization of factors influencing workmanship through a comprehensive analysis of secondary information. In 8th International Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Management. University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Retrieved February 25, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352670205
• Housing For Health. (2024). Structural safety. Access Address (10.02.2024):https://www.housingforhealth.com/housing- guide/structural-safety
• Hsu, P. F., Wu, C. R. & Li, Z. R. (2008). Optimizing resource-based allocation for senior citizen housing to ensure a competitive advantage using the analytic hierarchy process. Building and Environment, 43(1), 90–97.
• Hyun, C., Cho, K., Koo, K., Hong, T. & Moon, H. (2008). Effect of delivery methods on design performance in multifamily housing projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(7), 468– 482.
• Ismail, F. Z., Halog, A. & Smith, C. (2017). How sustainable is disaster resilience? An overview of sustainable construction approach in post- disaster housing reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(5), 555-572.
• Ishizaka, A. (2014). Comparison of fuzzy logic, AHP, FAHP and hybrid fuzzy AHP for new supplier selection and its performance analysis. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 9(1-2), 1-22.
• Iqbal, M., Ma, J., Ahmad, N., Ullah, Z. & Ahmed, R. I. (2021). Uptake and adoption of sustainable energy technologies: Prioritizing strategies to overcome barriers in the construction industry by using an integrated AHP‐TOPSIS approach. Advanced Sustainable Systems, 5(7), 2100026.
• Kamaruzzaman, S. N., Lou, E. C. W., Wong, P. F., Wood, R. & Che-Ani, A. I. (2018). Developing weighting system for refurbishment building assessment scheme in Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Energy Policy, 112, 280-290.
• Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger. Chapter 4.
• Khaldi, K. (2017). Quantitative, qualitative or mixed research: Which research paradigm to use. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 7(2), 15-24.
• Lacasse, M. A., Ge, H., Hegel, M., Jutras, R., Laouadi, A., Sturgeon, G. & Wells, J. (2018). Guideline on design for durability of building envelopes. National Research Council (NRC) of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada. Access Address (15.02.2024):https://doi.org/10.4224/23003983
• Lam, K. C., Lam, M. C. K. & Wang, D. (2008). MBNQA-oriented self- assessment quality management system for contractors: Fuzzy AHP approach. Construction Management and Economics, 26(5), 447–461.
• Lam, K. & Zhao, X. (1998). An application of quality function deployment to improve the quality of teaching. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(4), 389–413.
• Lawson, B. (2007). Language of space. Great Britain: Architectural Press.
• Leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) rating system. (2000). Green building rating system. US. Green Building Council. Access Address (12.02.2024): http://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/beg/ArchTech/LEED%20rating%20V2_0.p df
• Li, J., & Zou, P. X. W. (2011). Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1205–1209.
• Louw, H. (2003). Aesthetics, ethics and workmanship: The need for a cultural dimension to construction history. Huerta S., (Ed.) Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction History (s. 1335- 1344). Madrid, İspanya. Access Address (15.02.2024): http://www.sedhc.es/biblioteca/actas/CIHC1_127_Louw%20H.pdf
• Madsen, H. O., Krenk, S. & Lind, N. C. (2006). Methods of structural safety. Courier Corporation. New Jersey: Dover Publications.
• Majeed, N. N., Oleiwi, M. S., & Yaseen, R. A. (2019). The architectural variables (shape, function, and durability) and their impact in the architectural design to guarantee the design efficiency: Vol.528. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, (s. 022054). IOP Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/518/2/022054. Access Address (10.02.2024): https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757- 899X/518/2/022054/meta.
• Mamauag, J. (2023). The role of the economy in shaping architectural design. Access address (10.01.2023):https://jonnelmamauag.medium.com/of-economy-and- design-in-architecture-part-1-an-introduction-8ad9a6bdff1c#:
• Mathiyazhagan, K., Gnanavelbabu, A. & Lokesh Prabhuraj, B. (2019). A sustainable assessment model for material selection in construction industries perspective using hybrid MCDM approaches. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 16(2), 234-259.
• McIntyre, M. H. (2006). A literature review of the social, economic and environmental impact of architecture and design. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive Social Research.
• Mittal M. (2023). Structural safety?. Access address (10.06.2023): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/structural-safety-manoj-mittal
• Mohsen, M. A. (2000). Aesthetic Values in the Plastic Arts. Dar Al-Fikr Al- Arabi. 1st Edition. Cairo.
• Mora, E. P. (2007). Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials. Building and environment, 42(3), 1329-1334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.004. Access Address (11.02.2024): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132305004737
• Nasar, J. L. (2000). The evaluative image of places. Walsh et al., (Ed.) Person-environment psychology. Psychology Press (May 2000), (s. 117- 168) Access Address (20.02.2024): https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781410605771- 5/evaluative-image-places-jack-nasar
• National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Centre. (2002). Durability by Design: A Guide for Residential Builders and Designers. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington D.C. Access Address (11.02.2024): https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/durability_by_design.pd f
• Nireki, T. (1996). Service life design. Construction and Building Materials. 10(5)403–406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0950- 0618(95)00045-3. Access Address (11.02.2024): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0950061895000453
• Oke, A. E., Aigbavboa, C. O. & Semenya, K. (2017). Energy savings and sustainable construction: Examining the advantages of nanotechnology. Energy Procedia, 142, 3839-3843.
• Ortiz, O., Castells, F. & Sonnemann, G. (2009). Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials, 23(1), 28-39. Access Address (28.2.2024): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095006180700300 5
• Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J. C. & Castells, F. (2010). Environmental performance of construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain. Waste Management, 30(4), 646-654. Access Address (13.02.2024): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.013
• Pan, N. F. (2008). Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Automation in Construction, 17(8), 958–965.
• Pan, W., Dainty, A. R. J. & Gibb, A. G. F. (2012). Establishing and weighting decision criteria for building system selection in housing construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(11), 1239– 1250.
• Presidency of Strategy and Budget. (2023). Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes report 2023. Presidency of Strategy and Budget. Access address (05.01.2024): https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Kahramanmaras-andHatay- Earthquakes-Report.pdf.
• Rad, M. A. H., Jalaei, F., Golpour, A., Varzande, S. S. H. & Guest, G. (2021). BIM-based approach to conduct Life Cycle Cost Analysis of resilient buildings at the conceptual stage. Automation in Construction, 123, 103480. Access Address (20.02.2024): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103480.
• Razi, P. Z., Ramli, N. I., Ali, M. I. & Ramadhansyah, P. J. (2020). Selection of method in construction industry by using analytical hierarchy process (AHP): Vol. 712. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (s. 012015). IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1757- 899X/712/1/012015
• Robinson, H. & Symonds, B. (2015). Theories and principles of design Economics. Robinson, H. et al., (Ed.). Design economics for the built environment: impact of sustainability on project evaluation (March 2015), (s. 16-30). Access Address (10.02.2024): https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118944790.ch2.
• Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(11), 1073-1076.
• Saaty, T. L. & Vargas, L. G. (1991). The logic of priorities. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications. Shakir, I., Jasim, M. A. & Weli, S. S. (2021). High Rise Buildings: Design, Analysis, and Safety: An Overview. International Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology, 8, 1-13.
• Shurrab, J., Hussain, M. & Khan, M. (2019). Green and sustainable practices in the construction industry: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(6), 1063-1086.
• Stead, J. G. & Stead, W. E. (2014). Sustainable strategic management. New York: Routledge. Access Address (11.02.2024): https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315700533/su stainable-strategic-management-jean-garner-stead-edward-stead
• Sundquist, H. (2010). Risks and Safety in Building Structures. Grimvall, G. et al., (Ed.). Risks in Technological Systems. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer (2010), (s. 47-68). ISBN 978-1-84882-640-3. London: Springer.
• Tavares, R. M., Tavares, J. L. & Parry-Jones, S. L. (2008). The use of a mathematical multi-criteria decision-making model for selecting the fire origin room. Building and Environment, 43(12), 2090–2100.
• Terwel, K. C. & Jansen, S. J. (2015). Critical factors for structural safety in the design and construction phase. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 29(3), 04014068.
• Turton, P. (2012). How Climate Influenced Early Modernist Architecture and the International Style (IDBE). University of Cambridge. Vrcconstruction. (2023). Functional & Aesthetic Infrastructure. Access Address (12.10.2023): https://medium.com/@vrcgroup9/functional-aesthetic-infrastructure-with-the-best-civil-construction-company-ed0a7f7aaad2
• World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future; World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
• Xia, B., Rosly, N., Wu, P., Bridge, A. & Pienaar, J. (2016). Improving sustainability literacy of future quantity surveyors. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 5(4), 325-339.
• Yıldız, S., Kıvrak, S. & Arslan, G. (2017). Factors affecting environmental sustainability of urban renewal projects. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 34(3-4), 264-277.
• Yıldız, S., Kıvrak, S. & Arslan, G. (2018). Built Environment Design and Sustainability Relationship in Urban Transformation. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Journal, 27(1), 53-75
• Yılmaz, E. (2005). A land use planning model: The example of Cennetdere Valley. Ministry of Environment and Forestry Eastern Mediterranean Forestry Research Institute.
• Zaki, W. R. M., Nawawi, A. H. & Ahmad, S. S. (2010). Economic assessment of Operational Energy reduction options in a house using Marginal Benefit and Marginal Cost: A case in Bangi, Malaysia. Energy Conversion and Management, 51(3), 538-545.
• Zhang, G. & Zou, P. X. W. (2007). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process risk assessment approach for joint venture construction projects in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(10), 771–779.
• Zou, P. X. W. & Li, J. (2010). Risk identification and assessment in subway projects: Case study of Nanjing Subway Line 2. Construction Management and Economics, 28(12), 1219–1238.
• Zoning Law. (1985, March 5). Official Gazette (Number: 18749). Access Address (15.03.2024): https://mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat? MevzuatNo=3194&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5