Ma, S; Li, Z and Shen, Y (2025) Decision-making framework for selecting sustainable prefabricated residential building technology schemes under minimum assembly rate constraints. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 151(8): 04025100, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Prefabricated construction (PC) is a sustainable construction technology that is progressing worldwide. Nevertheless, there is a conflict between the policies' high requirements for assembly rates and developers' focus on maximizing project benefits, including cost, efficiency, and quality. Developers must address this conflict, under the constraint of a minimum assembly rate, through wise decisions regarding prefabricated residential buildings (PRB). Therefore, this study established a PRB technology scheme decision-making framework under the constraint of a minimum assembly rate from the perspective of the developers. First, the framework constructs a decision indicator system consisting of five primary indicators (construction cost, construction duration, structural performance, building performance, and constructability) and 15 secondary indicators and obtains the indicator weights using the combination ordered weighted average (C-OWA) operator. The quantitative and qualitative indicators of the individual construction techniques at the building element level are then quantified using the valuation mode of a bill of quantities (BOQ) and quality function deployment (QFD), respectively. The technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method was used to integrate the decision information and scheme ranking. Finally, as a case study, a PRB project in Qingdao, one of the first prefabricated building demonstration cities in China, was selected. Then, the YJK building software was used to develop 10 PRB technology schemes that meet the assembly rate requirements. These schemes were evaluated and selected using a decision-making framework. The results provided a ranking of the different technology schemes and determined the best scheme that can balance policy requirements and project benefits. In addition, the indicator performance of the building elements using different construction techniques was demonstrated. This framework provides effective decision-making tools and theoretical guidance for the adoption and optimization of prefabrication technologies in PRB, which contribute to the healthy and sustainable development of PRB.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assembly rate; prefabricated residential buildings; quality function deployment; sustainable development; technology schemes decision-making |
| Index terms: | construction cost, topsis, case study, efficiency, residential building, prefabrication, duration, quality function deployment, bills of quantities, prefabricated building, constructability, sustainable development, building performance, sustainable construction, China, preference, decision-making |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, data collection methods, project controls, decision analysis, construction integration, performance management, construction type, decision-making and optimization, quality assurance, building construction, Geography, health safety and environment, sustainable construction, decision-making and reasoning |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Risk Management, Quality Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here