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

被引:3
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 64 条
  • [1] Future-Proof Energy-Retrofit strategy for an existing Dutch neighbourhood
    Alavirad, Soheil
    Mohammadi, Saleh
    Hoes, Pieter-Jan
    Xu, Luyi
    Hensen, Jan L. M.
    [J]. ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2022, 260
  • [2] Multi-criteria decision support framework for climate change-sensitive thermal comfort evaluation in European buildings
    Amaripadath, Deepak
    Levinson, Ronnen
    Rawal, Rajan
    Attia, Shady
    [J]. ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2024, 303
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2021, ASHRAE HANDBOOK FUNDAMENTALS SI EDITION
  • [4] [Anonymous], 1980, The analytic hierarchy process
  • [5] Baciu I.-R, 2019, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, V586, DOI 10.1088/1757-899X/586/1/012007
  • [6] Badan Standardisasi Nasional (BSN), 2020, SNI 6390-2020 Konservasi Energi Sistem Tata Udara Bangunan Gedung
  • [7] HypE: An Algorithm for Fast Hypervolume-Based Many-Objective Optimization
    Bader, Johannes
    Zitzler, Eckart
    [J]. EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, 2011, 19 (01) : 45 - 76
  • [8] Wind farm site selection using BWM-AHP-MARCOS method: A case study of Libya
    Badi, Ibrahim
    Pamucar, Dragan
    Stevi, Zeljko
    Muhammad, L. J.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC AFRICAN, 2023, 19
  • [9] Balai Besar Teknologi Konversi Energi BPPT, 2020, Technical Report
  • [10] A systematic review of passive energy consumption optimisation strategy selection for buildings through multiple criteria decision-making techniques
    Balali, Amirhossein
    Yunusa-Kaltungo, Akilu
    Edwards, Rodger
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2023, 171