Multiple-criteria analysis of timber structures

Preface

Timber structures have become an increasingly important solution in modern construction due to their sustainability, structural efficiency, and architectural versatility. From traditional timber frames to advanced engineered wood products such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) and glued laminated timber (glulam), timber systems offer numerous benefits, including reduced environmental impact, rapid construction, and excellent strength-to-weight performance. As different timber structural solutions have distinct advantages and limitations, selecting the most appropriate option requires a systematic evaluation of technical, economic, environmental, and functional factors. Multiple-criteria analysis provides a valuable framework for comparing alternatives and supporting informed decision-making in timber construction projects.  

Prerequisites

1. A basic understanding of structural engineering principles.

2. Fundamental knowledge of construction materials and their properties.

3. Familiarity with timber as a construction material and its common applications.

4. Basic knowledge of building design and structural systems.

5. An understanding of elementary mathematics and data analysis concepts.

6. Basic awareness of sustainability considerations in construction.

7. The ability to interpret and compare technical information from different sources.

Learning outcomes

1. Explain the characteristics and applications of different timber structural systems.

2. Identify and select appropriate criteria for evaluating timber structures.

3. Assess timber structural alternatives from technical, economic, environmental, and functional perspectives.

4. Assign weights to evaluation criteria and justify their importance.

5. Apply multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method to compare timber structural solutions.

6. Interpret and discuss the results of the analysis.

7. Recommend the most suitable timber structural system for a specific construction project based on the evaluation results.

The selection of a timber structural system is a complex decision-making process that requires balancing multiple, often conflicting, criteria. While timber structures offer significant advantages in terms of sustainability, carbon storage, and resource efficiency, designers and engineers must also consider factors such as structural performance, fire resistance, durability, construction cost, architectural flexibility, and ease of assembly. Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods provide a systematic framework for evaluating alternative solutions by considering several criteria simultaneously and supporting transparent and objective decision-making (Zavadskas et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2021).

In timber construction, MCDM techniques such as the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (COPRAS) methods are increasingly used to compare structural alternatives. These methods enable decision-makers to assign weights to evaluation criteria, quantify the performance of different structural systems, and rank alternatives according to project-specific objectives. 

Recent studies have demonstrated the usefulness of MCDM in timber engineering. Gecys et al. (2024) applied SAW and COPRAS methods to compare alternative glulam structural systems for a grocery store building and identified the most efficient solution based on structural, economic, and aesthetic criteria. Similarly, Movaffaghi and Yitmen (2021) used multi-criteria decision analysis to evaluate timber–concrete composite floor systems in multi-storey wooden buildings. Other research by Theilig et al. (2024) has assessed timber ceiling systems by integrating environmental, structural, and building-physics criteria into a comprehensive decision-making framework. These studies highlight the value of MCDM methods in supporting sustainable and evidence-based structural design decisions.

Step 3 - Selection of Evaluation Criteria

Choose at least six criteria for evaluation. 

Typical evaluation criteria include economic indicators (e.g., construction cost), technical characteristics (e.g., strength and serviceability), environmental performance (e.g., carbon footprint), and functional aspects (e.g., construction speed and aesthetics). 

Criteria can be both quantitative and qualitative.

Step 4 - Weighting of Criteria

1. Assign weights to each criterion so that the total equals 100%.

2. Provide justification for the selected weights.

Step 6 - Results and Discussion

1. Present the ranking of alternatives.

2. Discuss how different criteria influenced the final result.

3. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the highest-ranked option.

Step 7 - Conclusions

1. Summarize the main findings.

2. Recommend the most suitable timber structural system for the selected building type.

References

• Gecys, T., Tupenaite, L., Kanapeckiene, L., & Naimaviciene, J. (2024). Multi-criteria assessment of timber-based structural systems for a grocery store. Buildings, 14(5), Article 1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051335

• Movaffaghi, H., & Yitmen, I. (2021). Multi-criteria decision analysis of timber–concrete composite floor systems in multi-storey wooden buildings. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 38(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1934826

• Theilig, K., Merk, D., Blömer, T., Lang, W., Winter, S., & Birk, S. (2024). Multi-criteria decision making for timber constructions: Analysis of ceiling types using utility analysis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1363(1), 012096. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1363/1/012096

• Zavadskas, E. K., Antuchevičienė, J., & Kapliński, O. (2015). Multi-criteria decision making in civil engineering: Part I—A state-of-the-art survey. Engineering Structures and Technologies, 7(3), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882X.2015.1110954

• Zhu, X., Meng, X., & Zhang, M. (2021). Application of multiple criteria decision making methods in construction: A systematic literature review. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 27(6), 372–403. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.15283