Anumba, C J; Abdullah, A and Ruikar, K (2008) An integrated system for demolition techniques selection. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 4(2), pp. 130-148. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
The limited availability of greenfield sites has led to more developments being situated on brownfield sites, which have been used for other purposes. In many cases, such development involves the demolition of existing buildings and structures. It is very important that the most appropriate methods are used in the demolition of such facilities, as this has serious implications for safety, the recovery and recycling of materials and components, and cost (among other factors). This paper is concerned with the considerations that are involved in making the right decision for each demolition project. It presents an intelligent system that is intended to guide engineers in choosing the most appropriate demolition technique for a given project. Details of the development, operation and evaluation of the system are presented, with examples to illustrate the key concepts. It is concluded that systems such as the one presented in the paper have considerable potential for contributing to the sustainability agenda by ensuring that consideration is given to the most sustainable and economical options.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytic hierarchy process; demolition techniques; integrated systems; multi-criteria decision-making |
| Index terms: | integrated system, option, recycling, multi-criteria decision-making, recovery, intelligent system, engineer |
| Subjects: | operations management, profession, design methods, decision analysis, automation and robotics, waste management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Risk Management, Digital Applications, Sustainability, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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