The Use of a Multi-Criteria Decision Model to Choose Between Different Structural Forms Within Modern Office Construction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technological University Dublin ARROW@TU Dublin Masters Built Environment 2009-08-01 The Use of a Multi-Criteria Decision Model to Choose Between Different Structural Forms Within Modern Office Construction Margaret Rogers Technological University Dublin Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/builtmas Part of the Other Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Rogers, M. (2010). The Use of a Multi-Criteria Decision Model to Choose Between Different Structural Forms Within Modern Office Construction.Masters dissertation. Dublin Institute of Technology. doi:10.21427/D7NC99 This Theses, Masters is brought to you for free and open access by the Built Environment at ARROW@TU Dublin. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters by an authorized administrator of ARROW@TU Dublin. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License The use of a multi-criteria decision model to choose between different structural forms within modern office construction MPhil Thesis Name: Margaret Rogers Supervisor: Dr. Tom Dunphy Date of Submission: 29/09/2010 1 | Page Declaration I certify that this thesis which I now submit for examination for the award of _____________________, is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others, save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. This thesis was prepared according to the regulations for postgraduate study by research of the Dublin Institute of Technology and has not been submitted in whole or in part for another award in any Institute. The work reported on in this thesis conforms to the principles and requirements of the Institute's guidelines for ethics in research. The Institute has permission to keep, lend or copy this thesis in whole or in part, on condition that any such use of the material of the thesis be duly acknowledged. Signature ___________________________ Date _______________ Candidate 2 | Page Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................ 7 2 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................. 14 2.1 AIMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 14 3 STRUCTURAL OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 18 ℗ 3.2 SLIMFLOR BEAMS WITH PRE-CAST CONCRETE SLAB (FIGURE 3.1.1).................................................................. 20 ℗ 3.3 SLIMDEK PROPPED AND UN-PROPPED (FIGURES 3.1.2 & 3.1.3) ..................................................................... 20 3.4 COMPOSITE BEAM AND SLAB (FIGURE 3.1.4) ................................................................................................ 21 3.5 LONG SPAN CELLULAR OR CASTELLATED BEAMS (FIGURE 3.1.5) ......................................................................... 21 3.6 COMPOSITE BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS (FIGURE 3.1.6) ................................................................................ 21 3.7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FLAT SLAB (FIGURE 3.1.7) ......................................................................................... 21 3.8 IN-SITU CONCRETE BEAMS AND COLUMNS WITH PRE-CAST HOLLOW CORE SLAB (FIGURE 3.1.8) ............................... 22 3.9 WAFFLE SLAB (FIGURE 3.1.9) .................................................................................................................... 22 3.10 PRE-CAST DOUBLE T-BEAMS (FIGURE 3.1.10) ............................................................................................... 22 4 COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS OPTIONS WITHIN THE IRISH CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ..................... 33 4.1 COST ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 4.2 INITIAL EMBODIED ENERGY ........................................................................................................................ 80 4.3 FRAME CONSTRUCTION TIME ..................................................................................................................... 99 4.4 OVERALL CONSTRUCTION TIME ................................................................................................................. 101 5 COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS OPTIONS BETWEEN THE IRISH AND BRITISH CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES IN RELATION TO COST AND INITIAL EMBODIED ENERGY .......................................................... 106 5.1 COMPARISON OF COST ............................................................................................................................ 106 5.2 COMPARISON OF INITIAL EMBODIED ENERGY ............................................................................................... 112 5.3 FRAME CONSTRUCTION TIME .................................................................................................................... 117 5.4 OVERALL CONSTRUCTION TIME ................................................................................................................. 119 5.5 SUMMARY OF RANKING OF OPTIONS IN DUBLIN AND MANCHESTER .................................................................. 121 6 MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL (MCDA) ........................................................................ 123 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 123 6.2 DEFINE OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 123 3 | Page 6.3 FORMULATE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 123 6.4 GENERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ 124 6.5 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................. 124 6.6 SELECTION ............................................................................................................................................ 124 6.7 MODELS USED WITHIN THE STUDY ............................................................................................................. 126 7 RESULTS OF THE DECISION MODELLING PROCESS ............................................................................... 135 7.1 BORDA METHOD ................................................................................................................................... 135 7.2 DOMINANCE METHOD ............................................................................................................................ 138 7.3 PROMETHEE 1 MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 145 8 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 171 9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 178 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 180 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 202 4 | Page Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge her supervisor Dr. Tom Dunphy for all his assistance, as well as Mr John Turner, Head of School, Civil and Building Services, for facilitating the research. The author would also like to thank the following for their help, technical advice and expertise: Andrew Mannion, Structural Engineers, Moate, Co Westmeath. Mark Leonard Leonard Engineering Ltd., Ballybay, Co. Monaghan. Cormac Construction, Rathfarnham, Dublin. Mc Grath Precast Concrete, O’ Callaghan’s Mills, Co.Clare. Majella Mc Dermott, Corus, Leeson Street, Dublin Composite Design 16, Holmview Avenue, Omagh, Co Tyrone,BT79 OAQ 5 | Page Abstract In 1993 the Steel Construction Institute carried out an economic analysis (including frame and overall construction time) of a number of structural options, for what is regarded as a typical office building, in outer Manchester. The study was later updated in 2004 due to changes in cost and new forms of construction notably the ‘slimdeck’ system. In 1994 the Steel Construction Institute carried out a study with regard to initial embodied energy on the same structural options considered in the 1993 publication. This Project carries