Technical Papers
Jan 3, 2023

Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Steel and Mass Timber Prototype Buildings in the Pacific Northwest

Publication: Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 29, Issue 1

Abstract

This study used multicriteria decision analysis to quantitatively compare two prototype buildings, both designed using equivalent mass timber and steel structural systems across four decision criteria of seismic resiliency, global warming potential, superstructure cost, and durability. The 5-story and 12-story prototype buildings were both located at an arbitrary site in Seattle, WA. The first three decision criteria were quantitatively measured for each prototype building and durability was assumed to be equivalent between the alternatives. Seismic resiliency was measured using the median expected annual loss calculated using as a percentage of predicted building replacement cost using a procedure in line with FEMA P-58. The global warming potential was measured over the production, construction, and end-of-life stages using the life-cycle analysis program Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (IE4B). The superstructure cost was calculated as the average cost per square meter using 10 estimating variations that attempt to account for uncertainty in market rates of material, labor, and mass timber design efficiency. Five decision-maker scenarios were analyzed that span the practical range of decision-maker priorities, as informed by discussions with architects and engineers active in the Pacific Northwest. Results from this study showed that for decision-maker cases where the global warming priority was low, steel buildings were the preferred choice. For cases with moderate to high global warming priority and low priority on cost, mass timber buildings were the preferred choice. However, for decision-maker scenarios with moderate priority on both global warming potential and cost, the steel and mass timber buildings were approximately equivalent. Finally, a hybrid steel–timber alternative was presented as a possible sweet-spot solution that merged the benefits of each building material and minimized their drawbacks, making it the most-preferred solution for the case of moderate priority on both cost and global warming potential. The hybrid case was also close second in ranked choice for all other scenarios examined.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The authors would like to thank the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) for supporting this research. Thank you to the industry advisors that guided the design of the prototype buildings and assisted with the cost estimations.

References

AISC. 2016a. Specification for structural steel buildings. AISC/ANSI 360-16. Chicago: AISC.
AISC. 2016b. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC/ANSI 341-16. Chicago: AISC.
Allan, K., and A. R. Phillips. 2021. “Comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of low and mid-rise mass timber buildings with equivalent structural steel alternatives.” Sustainability 13: 3401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063401.
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASMI (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute). 2019. Athena impact estimator for buildings, user manual and transparency document, version 5. Ottawa: ASMI.
ATC. 2006. Next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines program plan for new and existing buildings. Rep. No. ATC/FEMA P-58. Washington, DC: FEMA.
ATC. 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Rep. No. ATC/FEMA P-695. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Baird, A., T. Smith, A. Palermo, and S. Pampanin. 2014. Experimental and numerical study of U-shape flexural plate (UFP) dissipators. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering.
Bare, J. C. 2012. Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (TRACI), version 2.1 – user’s manual. EPA/600/R-12/554. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
Brandt, K., A. Wilson, D. Bender, J. D. Dolan, and M. P. Wolcott. 2019. “Techno-economic analysis for manufacturing cross-laminated timber.” Bioresources 14 (4): 7790–7804. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.14.4.7790-7804.
Chen, Z., H. Gu, R. D. Bergman, and S. Liang. 2020. “Comparative life-cycle assessment of a high-rise mass timber building with an equivalent reinforced concrete alternative using the athena impact estimator for buildings.” Sustainability 12: 4708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114708.
CoreBrace. 2019. Corebrace BRB preliminary design aid. West Jordan, UT: Corebrace.
Cutfield, M., and Q. Ma. 2012. “Probability distributions of cumulative losses caused by earthquakes.” In Proc., 15th World Conf. of Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal: Sociedade Portuguesa de Engenharia Sísmica (SPES).
Figueira, J., S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott. 2013. “An overview of the ELECTRE methods and their recent extensions.” J Multi Criteria Decis. Anal. 20: 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1482.
Ganey, R., J. Berman, T. Akbas, S. Loftus, J. D. Dolan, R. Sause, J. Ricles, S. Pei, J. van de Lindt, and H.-E. Blomgren. 2017. “Experimental investigation of self-centering cross-laminated timber walls.” J. Struct. Eng. 143: 10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001877.
Guggemos, A. A., and A. Horvath. 2005. “Comparison of environmental effects of steel- and concrete-framed buildings.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 11 (2): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:2(93).
Hua, T. K., and N. Abdullah. 2018. “Weighted sum-Dijkstra’s algorithm in best path identification based on multiple criteria.” J. Comput. Sci. Comput. Math. 8 (3): 107–113. https://doi.org/10.20967/jcscm.2018.04.008.
ISO. 2017. Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works – Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services. ISO 21930:2017. Geneva: ISO.
Kuzman, M. K., P. Groselj, N. Ayrilmis, and M. Zbasnik-Senegacnik. 2013. “Comparison of passive house construction types using analytic hierarchy process.” Energy Build. 64: 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.020.
Liang, S., H. Gu, T. Bilek, and R. Bergman. 2019. Life-cycle cost analysis of a mass timber building: Methodology and hypothetical case study. Research Paper FPL-RP-702. Madison, WI: Forest Products Laboratory, U.S. Dept.of Agriculture.
Lozano-Ramirez, N. E., and E. E. Munoz-Diaz. 2015. “Seismic and direct cost comparison of conventional and nonconventional structural systems used for an irregular building.” J. Archit. Eng. 21 (2): 05015001.
Lu, X., C. Zhang, W. Liao, Y. Lin, X. Lin, and H. Xue. 2021. “Comparison of seismic performance between typical structural steel buildings designed following the Chinese and United States codes.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 24 (9): 1828–1846. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433220986633.
McKenna, F., G. Fenves, B. Jeremic, and M. Scott. 2008. “Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.” http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
MMC (Multihazard Mitigation Council). 2019. Natural hazard mitigation saves: 2019 report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences.
Nestico, A., and P. Somma. 2019. “Comparative analysis of multi-criteria methods for the enhancement of historical buildings.” Sustainability 11: 4526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174526.
Ogrodnik, K. 2019. “Multi-criteria analysis of design solutions in architecture and engineering: Review of applications and a case study.” Buildings 9: 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9120244.
Pei, S., J. Van de Lindt, A. Barbosa, J. Berman, E. McDonnell, J. Dolan, H. E. Blomgren, R. B. Zimmerman, D. Huang, and S. Wichman. 2019. “Experimental seismic response of a resilient 2-story mass timber building with post-tensioned rocking walls.” J. Struct. Eng. 145 (11): 04019120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002382.
Phillips, A. R., F. Ahmad, and K. Allan. 2022. Multiple-criteria evaluation of steel and mass timber construction using two prototype buildings in Seattle, WA. Final Project Rep. Chicago: AISC.
Pierobon, F., M. Huang, K. Simonen, and I. Ganguly. 2019. “Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study in the US Pacific Northwest.” J. Build. Eng. 26: 100862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862.
Robertson, A. B., F. C. F. Lam, and R. J. Cole. 2012. “A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of mid-rise office building construction alternatives: Laminated timber or reinforced concrete.” Buildings 2: 245–270. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2030245.
Triantaphyllou, E., B. Shu, S. Nieto Sanchez, and T. Ray. 1998. “Multi-criteria decision making: An operations research approach.” In Encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering, edited by J. G. Webster, 175–186. New York: Wiley.
Tomczak, K., and O. Kinash. 2016. “Assessment of the validity of investing in energy-efficient single-family construction in Poland – Case study.” Arch. Civ. Eng. 62 (4): 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1515/ace-2015-0101.
Tzeng, G. H., and J. J. Huang. 2011. Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Wilson, A. 2018. “Numerical modeling and seismic performance of post-tensioned cross-laminated timber rocking wall systems.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Washington State Univ.
Wilson, A., C. Motter, A. R. Phillips, and J. D. Dolan. 2019. “Modeling techniques for post-tensioned cross-laminated timber rocking walls.” Eng. Struct. 195: 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.06.011.
Wilson, A., C. Motter, A. R. Phillips, and J. D. Dolan. 2020a. “Seismic response of post-tensioned cross-laminated timber rocking wall buildings.” J. Struct. Eng. 146 (7): 04020123. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002673.
Wilson, A., A. R. Phillips, C. Motter, J. Y. Lee, and J. D. Dolan. 2020b. “Seismic loss analysis of buildings with post-tensioned cross-laminated timber walls.” Earthquake Spectra. 37 (1): https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020944188.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Architectural Engineering
Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 29Issue 1March 2023

History

Received: Jun 9, 2022
Accepted: Oct 31, 2022
Published online: Jan 3, 2023
Published in print: Mar 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Jun 3, 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Fokruddin Ahmad [email protected]
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99163. Email: [email protected]
Kevin Allan, S.M.ASCE [email protected]
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99163. Email: [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Washington State Univ., 148 Paccar, 2001 Grimes Way, Pullman, WA 99163 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2486-6039. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share