Bostancioglu, E (2021) Double skin façade assessment by fuzzy AHP and comparison with AHP. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 17(1-2), pp. 110-130. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
A double-skin façade (DSF) has been widely used in recent years for its thermal and aesthetic properties. DSFs can also control wind pressure, manage natural ventilation and provide noise insulation. This study aims at providing an assessment of DSF to building designers and builders with their selection of façade systems. The decisions taken on the selection of façade systems are complicated ones based on multiple criteria. A decision must be taken only after many criteria are evaluated. While certain criteria such as heat insulation, noise insulation, and cost can be easily quantified, it is difficult to measure subjective criteria such as aesthetics. Therefore, the study aims at reflecting the experience of professionals who have applied such façade systems, to be able to evaluate all assessment criteria and façade systems. Architects or engineers working in the construction sector assessed criteria and DSF alternatives by replying to a questionnaire. Fuzzy set theory aids in measuring the ambiguity of concepts that are associated with human being’s subjective judgment. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) has been applied to many assessment problems. It is used for the assessment of DSF in this study. AHP was used for the assessment of DSF in our previous study. The results of our previous study are also compared with the results of this study and findings are presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | box window; corridor; double-skin façade; fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; multi-storey; shaft-box |
| Index terms: | aesthetic, wind pressure, engineer, fuzzy set theory, builder, designer, judgment, construction sector, insulation, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, window, natural ventilation, questionnaire, architect |
| Subjects: | building materials, profession, data collection methods, dispute resolution, practitioner, industry analysis, decision-making and optimization, environmental engineering, factor and component analysis, structural engineering, architectural elements |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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