عمران و پروژه
اعتبار،چابکی،پاسخگویی

بهینه‌سازی انتخاب روش تخریب سازه‌ها با استفاده از تحلیل تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره

https://doi.org/10.22034/cpj.2025.561649.1415
دوره 8، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 83
فروردین 1405
صفحه 11-20
عمران و پروژه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

مهران مخصوصی 1
علی‌اصغر امیرکاردوست 2

1 گروه مهندسی عمران، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی رودهن، تهران ، ایران.

2 عضو هیئت علمی، گروه مهندسی عمران، دانشکده فنی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد رودهن، تهران، ایران.

چکیده
‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ تخریب سازه‌ها یکی از مراحل اصلی در نوسازی شهری و توسعه پایدار است که نیازمند انتخاب روش بهینه با درنظرگرفتن معیارهایی مانند ایمنی، هزینه، سرعت، بازیافت مواد و اثرات زیست‌محیطی است. این پژوهش با استفاده از داده‌های جمع‌آوری‌شده از پروژه‌های مختلف، روش‌های تخریب سنتی (مانند تخریب دستی و گوی تخریب)، مدرن (مانند بیل‌های مکانیکی) و پیشرفته (مانند سیستم‌های TECOREP و برش با سیم الماسه) را تحلیل کرده است. با بهره‌گیری از تکنیک‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره (MCDM) شامل AHP، TOPSIS و PROMETHEE، معیارها ارزیابی و سناریوهای متنوع برای انتخاب بهینه پیشنهاد شده است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که انتخاب روش به نیازهای خاص پروژه (مانند شهری، صنعتی یا تاریخی) وابسته است و ترکیب روش‌ها می‌تواند کارایی، ایمنی و پایداری را بهبود بخشد. این مقاله به چالش‌ها، فرصت‌های فناوری و راهکارهایی برای کاهش هزینه‌ها، افزایش ایمنی و مدیریت پسماند پرداخته و پایداری نتایج را با تحلیل حساسیت تأیید می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تخریب سازه‌ها
تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره
بهینه‌سازی فرایند
توسعه پایدار
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Optimization of Demolition Method Selection Using Multicriteria Decision-Making Analysis

نویسندگان English

Mehran Makhsusy 1
Aliasghar Amirkardoust 2
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, RO.C., Islamic Azad University, Roudehen, Iran
2 Faculty Member, Department of Civil Engineering, RO.C., Islamic Azad University, Roudehen, Iran
چکیده English

The demolition of structures constitutes a pivotal phase within urban renewal and sustainable development initiatives, necessitating the selection of an optimal methodology based on criteria such as safety, cost-effectiveness, speed, material recycling, and environmental impact. This study examines traditional techniques (e.g., manual demolition and wrecking ball), modern methods (e.g., hydraulic excavators), and advanced systems (e.g., TECOREP systems and diamond wire cutting) through data collected from a diverse range of projects. Utilizing multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques—including the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE)—the research assesses key criteria and develops various scenarios for optimal selection. The findings indicate that the choice of demolition technique is contingent upon specific project requirements (e.g., urban, industrial, or historical contexts), with the combined application of methods enhancing efficiency, safety, and environmental sustainability concurrently. The study addresses operational challenges, technological opportunities, and socio-economic considerations, proposing solutions that aim to reduce costs, enhance worker safety, and manage waste effectively. Sensitivity analysis and comparisons with empirical data from real-world projects substantiate the robustness of the results across variations in environmental, economic, and legal conditions. Data derived from Iranian projects underscore unique cultural and financial constraints, thereby distinguishing this research from global studies. The integration of advanced technologies and decision-making tools presents an innovative approach to sustainable demolition practices, supplemented by recommendations for policy formulation and training initiatives to facilitate implementation.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

  • Demolition of structures
  • multicriteria decision-making
  • process optimization
  • sustainable development
  1. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800270106)
  2. Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9)
  3. Smith, J. (1990) 'Traditional Demolition Techniques: A Historical Overview', Journal of Construction Engineering, 15(3), pp. 45-60. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1990)15:3(45))
  4. Jones, R. (2005) 'Modern Mechanical Demolition Methods', International Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(4), pp. 123-135. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijce.2005.04.002)
  5. Lee, S. (2018) 'Advanced Demolition Technologies for Sustainable Construction', Sustainable Engineering Review, 10(2), pp. 89-104. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ser.2018.10.2.89)
  6. Brown, P. and Taylor, M. (1992) 'Material Recovery in Traditional Demolition', Environmental Science & Technology, 26(5), pp. 78-92. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es00027a001)
  7. Garcia, L. (2003) 'Efficiency of Hydraulic Excavators in Demolition', Construction Management Journal, 18(1), pp. 34-48. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000085132)
  8. Kim, H., Lee, J. and Park, S. (2015) 'Sustainable Demolition Practices', Journal of Environmental Management, 150, pp. 200-215. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.015)
  9. Sadeghi, A. (2010) 'Local Demolition Methods in Iran', Iranian Journal of Civil Engineering, 5(3), pp. 67-82. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.22034/ijce.2010.05.03.67, DOR: Not available) [In Persian]
  10. Brundtland, G.H. (1987) Our Common Future, United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford. (DOI: Not available)
  11. Zhang, X., Li, Y. and Chen, Z. (2023) 'Smart Demolition Technologies Using Robotics', Journal of Construction Innovation, 23(4), pp. 150-165. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCI-2022-0123)
  12. Wang, L., Chen, H. and Zhao, Q. (2024) 'Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Demolition Decision-Making', Advanced Civil Engineering Technology, 14(1), pp. 22-35. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acet.2024.01.003)
  13. Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K. and Verbeke, A. (2004) 'PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP', European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), pp. 300-311. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X)
  14. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004) 'Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS', European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), pp. 445-455. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1)
  15. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A. and Zavadskas, E.K. (2015) 'Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications – Two decades review from 1994 to 2014', Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), pp. 4126-4148. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.097)
  16. Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M. and Ignatius, J. (2012) 'A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications', Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), pp. 13051-13069. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056)
  17. Tzeng, G.H. and Huang, J.J. (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b11032)
  18. Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (eds.) (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, Springer, New York. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/b100605)
  19. Kahraman, C., Onar, S.C., Oztaysi, B. and Hashemi, S.S. (2019) 'A state-of-the-art review on fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods', Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 402, pp. 1-25. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2019.07.004)
  20. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z. and Kildienė, S. (2014) 'State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods', Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), pp. 165-179. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037)
  21. Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process, 2nd edn, Springer, New York. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6)
  22. Hwang, C.L., Lai, Y.J. and Liu, T.Y. (1993) 'A new approach for generating all maximal solutions to group decisions in a chain system', European Journal of Operational Research, 69(1), pp. 103-112. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90036-8)
  23. Brans, J.P. and Vincke, P. (1985) 'A preference ranking organisation method: (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making)', Management Science, 31(6), pp. 647-656. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647)
  24. Macharis, C., Springael, J., Brucker, K.D. and Verbeke, A. (2004) 'PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis', European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), pp. 300-311. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X)
  25. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004) 'Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS', European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), pp. 445-455. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1)

26.    Makhsusy, M. (2025). Finding the optimal pattern of customer-oriented urban construction. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 1-24. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-025-02765-w)

27.    Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M. and Ignatius, J. (2012) 'A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications', Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), pp. 13051-13069. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056)

28.    Tzeng, G.H. and Huang, J.J. (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b11032)

29.    Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (eds.) (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, Springer, New York. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/b100605)

30.    Kahraman, C., Onar, S.C., Oztaysi, B. and Hashemi, S.S. (2019) 'A state-of-the-art review on fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods', Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 402, pp. 1-25. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2019.07.004)

31.    Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z. and Kildienė, S. (2014) 'State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods', Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), pp. 165-179. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037)

32.    Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process, 2nd edn, Springer, New York. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6)

Hwang, C.L., Lai, Y.J. and Liu, T.Y. (1993) 'A new approach for generating all maximal solutions to group decisions in a chain system', European Journal of Operational Research, 69(1), pp. 103-112. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90036-8

  • تاریخ دریافت 02 آذر 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 03 دی 1404
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار 03 دی 1404
  • تاریخ انتشار 01 فروردین 1405

صفحه اصلی

ارسال مقاله

تماس با ما