Education Building Maintenance Priority Strategy Consider Safety Condition Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Muhammad Faizal Ardhiansyah Arifin(1), Yoga Aditya(2), Agung Budiwirawan(3), Agung Sutarto(4), Arie Taveriyanto(5),

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jtsp.v24i1.35980


(1) Universitas Negeri Semarang
(2) Universitas Negeri Semarang
(3) Universitas Negeri Semarang
(4) Universitas Negeri Semarang
(5) Universitas Negeri Semarang

Abstract

Abstract. Buildings with component degradation are a common challenge for all construction companies across the world. There are various building's components that it is challenging for construction companies to manage them all at once. It was not considered that the building agency is responsible for more than one building at a time. These issues have gotten more complicated as a result of the building agencies' limited financial resources for building maintenance. This study attempts to provide a visible solution to manage the building maintenance strategy based on complex building maintenance problems. The Analytical Hierarchy Process was used to give a complete way for assessing the building's condition (AHP). This method developed in this study was applied to define the building condition and followed by determining the building priority to be maintained. The building component in this study was specified into three specific components such as interior, exterior, and building utility. To complete this method, a three-level priority factor was determined with consideration from the safety factor follow by the functionality factor, dan the last is an esthetic factor. The developed model shows a proper and reliable solution related to the degradation of building components and their functionalities.

Keywords

Building, maintenance, sustainability, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Full Text:

PDF

References

N. Kwon, K. Song, Y. Ahn, M. Park, and Y. Jang, “Maintenance cost prediction for aging residential buildings based on case-based reasoning and genetic algorithm,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 28, no. August 2019, p. 101006, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101006.

I. El-Darwish and M. Gomaa, “Retrofitting strategy for building envelopes to achieve energy efficiency,” Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 579–589, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2017.05.011.

J. C. P. Cheng, W. Chen, K. Chen, and Q. Wang, “Data-driven predictive maintenance planning framework for MEP components based on BIM and IoT using machine learning algorithms,” Autom. Constr., vol. 112, no. August 2018, p. 103087, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103087.

A. Hauashdh, J. Jailani, I. A. Rahman, and N. AL-fadhali, “Structural equation model for assessing factors affecting building maintenance success,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 44, no. March, p. 102680, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102680.

A. Silva and J. de Brito, “Do we need a buildings’ inspection, diagnosis and service life prediction software?,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 22, no. August 2018, pp. 335–348, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.12.019.

R. Matos, F. Rodrigues, H. Rodrigues, and A. Costa, “Building condition assessment supported by Building Information Modelling,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 38, no. December 2020, p. 102186, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102186.

J. Barrelas, Q. Ren, and C. Pereira, “Implications of climate change in the implementation of maintenance planning and use of building inspection systems,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 40, no. March, p. 102777, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102777.

C. Nägeli, A. Farahani, M. Österbring, J. O. Dalenbäck, and H. Wallbaum, “A service-life cycle approach to maintenance and energy retrofit planning for building portfolios,” Build. Environ., vol. 160, no. March, p. 106212, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106212.

J. Kim, S. Han, and C. Hyun, “Minimizing Fluctuation of the Maintenance, Repair, and Rehabilitation Cost Profile of a Building,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 30, no. 3, p. 04015034, 2016, doi: 10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000775.

V. W. Y. Tam, I. W. H. Fung, and R. C. M. Choi, “Maintenance Priority Setting for Private Residential Buildings in Hong Kong,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 31, no. 3, p. 04016115, 2017, doi: 10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000988.

J. Cuadrado, M. Zubizarreta, E. Rojí, H. García, and M. Larrauri, “Sustainability-Related Decision Making in Industrial Buildings: An AHP Analysis,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2015, no. Mcdm, 2015, doi: 10.1155/2015/157129.

A. Supriadi, A. Rustandi, D. H. L. Komarlina, and G. T. Ardiani, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Teknik Penentuan Strategi Daya Saing Kerajinan Bordir. 2018.

K. Figueiredo, R. Pierott, A. W. A. Hammad, and A. Haddad, “Sustainable material choice for construction projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework based on BIM and Fuzzy-AHP,” Build. Environ., vol. 196, no. November 2020, p. 107805, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107805.

M. Mathew, R. K. Chakrabortty, and M. J. Ryan, “A novel approach integrating AHP and TOPSIS under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced manufacturing system selection,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 96, no. October, p. 103988, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103988.

V. Kutut, E. K. Zavadskas, and M. Lazauskas, “Assessment of priority alternatives for preservation of historic buildings using model based on ARAS and AHP methods,” Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 287–294, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.acme.2013.10.007.

F. Andreolli, P. Bragolusi, C. D’Alpaos, F. Faleschini, and M. A. Zanini, “An AHP model for multiple-criteria prioritization of seismic retrofit solutions in gravity-designed industrial buildings,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 45, no. October 2021, p. 103493, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103493.

S. S. Liu and M. F. A. Arifin, “Preventive maintenance model for national school buildings in indonesia using a constraint programming approach,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–25, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13041874.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share