CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Building Envelope and Energy Efficiency

Energy consumption in buildings is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, which

have been extensively examined to assess their impact on overall energy demand. These
factors can be categorized into seven primary domains: climate characteristics, building-
related attributes, user-related behaviors, building services and operations, occupant
behavior and activity patterns, socio-economic factors, and indoor environmental
quality. Among these, heating and cooling systems are recognized as the most
significant energy consumers, particularly in both residential and commercial sectors.
As such, there is an increasing consensus among scholars and practitioners on the need
to reduce energy consumption by rigorously evaluating the performance of building
components during the early design phase. This phase is pivotal for exploring
alternative design configurations, structural solutions, materials, and components to
ensure the selection of the most energy-efficient options.

Building characteristics substantially influence energy usage, accounting for

approximately 42% of total energy consumption. Empirical evidence demonstrates that
improvements in insulation can achieve greater energy savings—particularly in heating
—than behavioral adjustments by occupants. This underscores the central role of the
building envelope in achieving energy efficiency. The capacity for indoor thermal
regulation is directly linked to the thermal performance of the building itself. A well-
designed building envelope can substantially decrease heating and cooling loads by
adapting effectively to climatic conditions.
The building envelope—demarcating the internal and external environments—performs
essential structural and environmental functions. Comprising the exterior walls, roofs,
and floors, it is fundamental to ensuring thermal insulation. This not only contributes to
occupant comfort but also curtails undesirable heat transfer. The thermal properties of
envelope materials critically determine operational energy consumption, particularly
with respect to HVAC systems. To minimize heat gains, architects and engineers
employ a range of strategies including envelope redesign, the use of innovative
insulating materials, installation of shading devices, optimization of building
orientation, and rationalization of window-to-wall ratios. These measures collectively
contribute to reducing the thermal impact and minimizing solar heat gains, thereby
enhancing the building’s overall energy efficiency.

Globally, regulatory frameworks have been established to govern building envelope

performance, particularly in managing heat gains and losses through building materials.
These regulations are typically climate-specific and aim to ensure that design solutions
adhere to energy-efficient benchmarks. Key thermal performance indicators, such as the
U-value and R-value, are mandated to maintain optimal insulation standards. For
example, colder regions commonly rely on U-values to measure thermal transmittance,
while in hotter climates, metrics such as the Overall Thermal Transfer Value (OTTV)
are more relevant. In the United States, standards like ASHRAE 90.1 and the
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) stipulate both prescriptive and
mandatory requirements, defining minimum and maximum R-values and U-values
across various climate zones to enforce energy-conscious building design.

Assessing the thermal performance of a building envelope requires consideration of

several critical parameters. The U-value measures the rate of heat transfer through a
material—lower values denote superior insulation. However, relying solely on U-values
may be insufficient to accurately gauge energy performance; additional variables such
as cooling set-point temperatures and internal heat gains must be accounted for.
Conversely, the R-value—being the inverse of the U-value—indicates a material’s
resistance to heat flow, with higher values suggesting better insulation. Moreover,
building orientation and window-to-wall ratio significantly influence the absorption of
solar radiation, ambient internal temperatures, and natural ventilation, all of which
affect the building’s energy footprint.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Energy Efficiency

Building Information Modeling (BIM) represents a comprehensive and integrated

approach to managing building information throughout the lifecycle of a project. It
fosters interdisciplinary collaboration by enabling the development and sharing of a
centralized digital model among architects, engineers, and other stakeholders. BIM has
proven instrumental in evaluating various building performance criteria—particularly
energy efficiency—during the early design stages, which traditionally relied on post-
design performance assessments.

The incorporation of visual programming tools, such as Dynamo for Autodesk Revit,
has further democratized access to BIM functionalities. These tools allow designers
with minimal programming knowledge to customize and optimize thermal properties
and other parameters via graphical interfaces. As a result, BIM serves as a valuable
platform for assessing and enhancing the thermal performance of building envelopes,
facilitating informed decision-making that aligns with sustainability goals.

Although BIM has demonstrated substantial promise in optimizing envelope thermal

performance, integration with energy simulation software remains a significant
challenge. Standardized data formats such as Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), and
particularly entities like IfcThermalMaterialProperties, were developed to capture and
share material properties relevant to thermal assessments. However, these are not
always compatible with popular simulation engines, necessitating better interoperability
between BIM platforms and energy modeling tools to ensure that relevant data can be
effectively leveraged for performance optimization.

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) in Material Selection

The selection of appropriate building materials constitutes a foundational strategy for

integrating sustainability into building design. As noted by Akadiri et al. (2013),
material selection significantly impacts both the life cycle performance of a building
and the comfort and health of its occupants. The decision-making process involves
simultaneous evaluation of multiple, and often conflicting, criteria—technical,
economic, environmental, and social—while also considering public health implications
across the building’s lifecycle (Ortiz et al., 2009).

A substantial body of research has focused on improving the building material selection
(BMS) process, particularly through Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies
(Arrigoni et al., 2017; Marzouk et al., 2018; Najjar et al., 2017; Takano et al., 2014,
2015; Mahmoudkelaye et al., 2018; Mayhoub et al., 2021; Moussavi Nadoushani et al.,
2017; Najjar et al., 2019; Reddy et al., 2019). LCA-based approaches primarily assess
environmental performance across all life cycle stages—from raw material extraction to
disposal. Nevertheless, these methods tend to marginalize other vital factors such as
economic feasibility, technical efficiency, and social impact (Akadiri et al., 2013).
Furthermore, LCA requires exhaustive data, making it cost-intensive, time-consuming,
and less suitable for early design decisions, where data uncertainty is prevalent (Reddy
et al., 2019).

To address these shortcomings, researchers have increasingly turned to Multi-Criteria

Decision Making (MCDM) approaches. These methods, originally developed for
complex decision environments across fields such as finance, aeronautics, and
engineering (Moussavi Nadoushani, 2017), are particularly suited to the BMS context.
Material selection inherently constitutes an MCDM problem, characterized by
uncertainty, stakeholder diversity, and competing objectives (Chen, 2019).

The multiplicity of assessment criteria—each with differing scales and qualitative

dimensions—complicates the identification, weighting, and prioritization process. This
complexity justifies the use of structured MCDM methods, which facilitate consensus
and aid in arriving at rational decisions that reflect stakeholders’ diverse values and
preferences.

MCDM is defined as a collective process wherein one or more decision-makers evaluate

multiple, often conflicting, criteria to determine the most suitable alternative (Nassar et
al., 2003; Xiong et al., 2018). The typical stages of MCDM include: defining the
objective, selecting alternatives and decision-makers, establishing evaluation criteria
and weights, gathering performance data for each alternative, engaging in a Consensus
Reaching Process (CRP), aggregating individual judgments into a collective assessment,
and selecting the optimal alternative using an appropriate MCDM technique (Chen,
2019).

In uncertain decision contexts, two particularly critical challenges arise: (1) the accurate
identification and weighting of criteria and (2) the selection of an appropriate MCDM
method suited to conditions of incomplete or imprecise information. Weight assignment
methods in MCDM fall into three principal categories:

1. Subjective methods, which rely on decision-makers’ preferences (e.g., Analytic

Hierarchy Process [AHP], Analytic Network Process [ANP]);
2. Objective methods, which use mathematical models based on data variability
(e.g., entropy method, standard deviation method, maximizing deviation
method); and
3. Integrated methods, which combine subjective judgments with objective data
analysis (Dong et al., 2018; Hatefi, 2019).
Despite the merits of these methods, many fail to adequately capture client
requirements, leading to calls for greater personalization and diversification of
weighting models (Chen, 2019). Among them, AHP remains widely used in the BMS
context due to its relative simplicity, accessibility, and transparency (My paper…).
Given the fundamental importance of aligning design decisions with client values and
expectations (Moghimi et al., 2017), further research is warranted to refine weighting
mechanisms in BMS applications.

MCDM methodologies can be broadly classified into four categories, depending on the
underlying theoretical approach:

1. Utility theory-based methods (also referred to as classical methods): These

assign utility scores to each criterion and include techniques such as AHP, ANP,
Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), VIKOR, COmplex PRoportional
ASsessment (COPRAS), and MULTIMOORA.
2. Outranking-based methods: These rely on pairwise comparisons and outranking
relations, including ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, and the Best-Worst Method
(BWM).
3. Non-classical methods: These incorporate formal modeling of risk and
uncertainty, often within fuzzy environments, to handle imprecise data and
subjective judgments.
4. Multi-objective decision-making methods: Suitable for evaluating continuous
alternatives, these involve multiple conflicting objective functions to be
optimized under specified constraints.

Selecting an appropriate method requires a nuanced understanding of the decision

problem’s structure and the nature of the available data. According to Chen (2019),
three characteristics are especially relevant in the context of material selection:
 ● Qualitative scales of criteria: Many evaluation criteria are inherently qualitative
and require translation into comparable measures.

● Normalization of data: To enable comparisons, raw data must often be

homogenized, though this process may result in the loss of original decision
information.

● Non-compensatory relationships: Some criteria must be strictly satisfied (e.g.,

minimum thermal resistance); trade-offs across criteria are not always
acceptable.

Recognizing these features is essential for selecting suitable MCDM methods and for
understanding the practical limitations of those found in the literature.

Illustrative Applications of MCDM in Material Selection

Numerous studies have applied MCDM methods to material selection in the context of
building envelope design. For example:

● Hammad (2018) employed a bi-objective mixed-integer programming model to

select insulation materials for external walls, balancing thermal transmittance
with embodied carbon.

● Bostancioglu (2019, 2021) developed an MCDM-based framework to assess

double-skin façades, offering designers a decision-support tool for evaluating
envelope systems.

● Mohammadi (2022) introduced a prioritization method for evaluating criteria

relevancy in selecting materials for high-rise building envelopes.
 ● Mayhoub (2021) proposed an MCDM-based framework for choosing green
building materials that balances performance, cost, waste reduction, and
environmental quality.

While MCDM frameworks are capable of integrating a broad range of stakeholder

perspectives and constraints, the ultimate objective remains the same: to reach a
decision that is not only optimal but also acceptable to all involved parties.

This brings into focus the importance of consensus-reaching mechanisms, particularly

in multi-stakeholder environments where actors (e.g., clients, architects, engineers,
contractors) often assign varying levels of importance to assessment criteria. In such
cases, achieving full consensus may be unrealistic. The notion of soft consensus,
introduced by Kacprzyk (1986), provides a more flexible alternative.

Soft consensus relaxes the traditional binary notion of agreement/disagreement by

allowing for partial agreement, measured through similarity or distance metrics between
individual judgments. This more human-centric conception of consensus facilitates
dynamic and iterative Consensus Reaching Processes (CRPs) that simulate real-world
negotiation and discussion. Such methods have gained prominence in recent literature
for their practicality and adaptability in collaborative decision environments (Labella et
al., 2018; Palomares et al., 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Wu & Xu, 2016b; Rodríguez et al.,
2018; Singh & Benyoucef, 2013).

Conclusion
MCDM provides a powerful framework for managing the complexities of building
material selection by integrating diverse stakeholder inputs and systematically
evaluating multiple, often conflicting, criteria. Its applicability to early-stage design
decisions—where uncertainty and imprecision prevail—makes it particularly valuable
in promoting sustainability in building envelope design. However, the full potential of
MCDM can only be realized when supported by robust consensus mechanisms, careful
method selection, and seamless integration with tools like BIM.

Canadian Building Codes and Energy Efficiency

The Relevance of Building Codes in Shaping a Sustainable Construction Culture

Building codes serve as essential regulatory instruments that standardize construction

practices and ensure safety, performance, and environmental compliance. In Canada,
these codes not only safeguard structural integrity and occupant health but also
contribute to the creation of a new cultural paradigm centered on energy efficiency and
environmental responsibility. As climate change and urbanization pressures intensify,
the role of building codes extends beyond prescriptive mandates—they become agents
of transformation that align construction practices with broader sustainability goals. By
embedding performance benchmarks and technological innovations within legal
frameworks, codes shape industry behavior, guide professional practice, and influence
societal expectations regarding energy conservation in the built environment.
Evolution of Canadian Building Energy Codes

Canada’s building energy codes have undergone substantial transformation over the past
several decades. In the early 20th century, building codes were largely focused on fire
safety and structural stability. Energy considerations gained prominence in the 1970s,
spurred by the global oil crisis and the realization of the building sector’s substantial
energy consumption. This led to the development of provincial energy codes and
eventually to the creation of national-level guidance.

The introduction of the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB) marked
a significant milestone. Initially developed in 1997 and comprehensively updated in
2011, 2015, and 2017, the NECB introduced a structured and nationally consistent
approach to improving the energy performance of buildings. The latest version, NECB
2020, incorporates more stringent energy efficiency requirements, performance-based
pathways, and greater flexibility for innovation. Furthermore, the National Building
Code (NBC) of Canada complements the NECB by addressing aspects of building
envelope design that directly affect energy performance, such as thermal resistance and
air leakage control.

Provincial and Territorial Adoption

Although the NECB is developed at the federal level by the Canadian Commission on
Building and Fire Codes, its adoption and enforcement lie within the jurisdiction of
provinces and territories. This results in a decentralized model wherein individual
regions either adopt the NECB in its entirety, adapt it with amendments, or establish
their own equivalent codes. For example:

● British Columbia has introduced a Step Code—a performance-based standard

that enables municipalities to incrementally raise energy efficiency
requirements.

● Ontario incorporates energy efficiency requirements directly into its provincial

building code, harmonized to a degree with NECB.

● Quebec has its own energy code but aligns several provisions with federal
guidelines.

This jurisdictional diversity allows for responsiveness to regional climate conditions

and construction practices, although it also introduces challenges for national
consistency.

Compliance Pathways: Prescriptive, Trade-Off, and Performance Approaches

The NECB and associated provincial codes offer multiple compliance pathways to
accommodate varying levels of design complexity and innovation. These are:

1. Prescriptive Path: This path specifies fixed requirements for each individual
component of the building (e.g., insulation values for walls, windows, roofs). It
is the most straightforward and is generally used in conventional projects with
limited complexity.
2. Trade-Off Path: This approach permits compensations between different
components within a system (e.g., higher-performing windows offsetting lower-
performing walls) as long as the overall energy performance meets the code
 requirements. It provides flexibility within subsystems while maintaining
prescriptive thresholds.
3. Performance Path (also called the “Performance-Based Path” or “Prescribed
Path” in some literature): This is the most flexible and innovation-friendly
method. It allows designers to demonstrate compliance by using energy
modeling and simulation to prove that the proposed building performs as well or
better than a reference building designed according to the prescriptive path. It is
especially useful in high-performance and net-zero energy buildings, where
prescriptive rules may limit innovation.

These pathways not only accommodate varying project types and stakeholder
capabilities but also serve to foster a culture of continuous improvement in energy-
efficient design practices.

Sustainability Integration in Canadian Codes

Recent versions of Canadian building codes reflect a deliberate shift toward

sustainability. Measures such as mandatory air leakage testing, enhanced thermal
resistance standards, and requirements for renewable energy readiness have been
introduced to align the codes with national and international climate commitments.
Moreover, the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change has
influenced code development by mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
from the building sector. The long-term vision is to transition toward net-zero energy
ready buildings as the national standard by 2030.

Building Envelope and Energy Efficiency

Energy consumption in buildings is driven by a multifaceted set of variables, the
interactions of which have been rigorously investigated in order to better understand and
mitigate their impact on operational energy demands. These variables can be grouped
into seven interrelated categories: climate characteristics, building-related features, user-
related factors, building systems and operational strategies, occupant behavior and
activity levels, socio-economic influences, and indoor environmental quality. Each of
these factors exerts a measurable influence on a building’s energy profile. However, the
most energy-intensive systems—particularly in both residential and commercial
contexts—remain heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.
Consequently, the building design community has increasingly emphasized reducing
energy consumption by evaluating the performance of structural components at the
early stages of the design process. This phase provides a critical window of opportunity
to simulate various scenarios, test material alternatives, and optimize design variables to
achieve substantial energy savings across the building’s lifecycle.

Building geometry, orientation, envelope configuration, and material selection are

collectively responsible for a significant share of energy use, accounting for nearly 42%
of total consumption according to several studies. Notably, empirical research reveals
that enhancing the thermal insulation properties of the building envelope can yield
greater reductions in heating demand than even the most proactive changes in occupant
behavior. This finding underscores the centrality of building envelope design in
achieving meaningful energy performance improvements. The building envelope, acting
as a mediator between the indoor and outdoor environments, governs heat and moisture
exchange, controls solar radiation entry, and regulates airflow. As such, the
effectiveness of thermal control within the indoor space is largely contingent upon the
envelope’s design and materials.

Functionally, the building envelope acts as a thermal and moisture barrier and forms the
primary interface through which environmental forces act upon the built space. It
consists of interconnected components including exterior walls, roofs, floors, doors, and
fenestration systems. These elements must collectively ensure protection from climatic
variations, noise pollution, and mechanical stresses, while simultaneously enabling
adequate ventilation, daylighting, and comfort. Among its key functions, the envelope is
tasked with minimizing undesirable heat gains and losses, particularly in climates
characterized by temperature extremes. This requires careful selection of materials with
high thermal resistance and integration of passive strategies such as shading devices,
thermal mass exploitation, and selective glazing. Optimizing building orientation to
reduce solar heat gain, and adjusting the window-to-wall ratio to balance natural light
and insulation, are among the design strategies that architects employ to improve energy
performance without sacrificing aesthetics or occupant well-being.

National and international building regulations increasingly emphasize the role of the
envelope in reducing building energy demand. Codes and standards around the world
have introduced benchmarks for thermal transmittance, air tightness, and solar heat gain
coefficients to guide design decisions. Notably, the U-value (thermal transmittance) and
R-value (thermal resistance) serve as the principal indicators for assessing envelope
performance. In colder climates, the U-value is of particular importance, as it reflects
the rate at which heat escapes from the building; lower U-values indicate better
insulation. In contrast, regions with predominantly hot climates focus on metrics like
the Overall Thermal Transfer Value (OTTV), which evaluates the combined thermal
effects of walls, windows, and roofs. In the United States, standards such as ASHRAE
90.1 and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) provide climate zone-
specific guidance and mandatory thresholds for R-values and U-values, ensuring that
buildings meet energy performance goals irrespective of geographic location.

Evaluating the thermal performance of the building envelope involves not only
analyzing material properties but also understanding the operational context in which
these materials function. While U-values and R-values provide initial estimates of
thermal effectiveness, real-world performance is also shaped by factors such as
construction quality, thermal bridging, internal heat generation, and set-point
temperatures for mechanical systems. Moreover, solar orientation, seasonal shading,
and the thermal inertia of envelope materials all influence how well a building retains or
sheds heat. For example, in hot climates, the strategic use of high-albedo materials,
external shading systems, and reflective coatings can dramatically reduce cooling loads.
In colder regions, superinsulated assemblies, airtight construction, and triple-glazed
windows are prioritized. Together, these design choices demonstrate the potential of the
envelope not just as a passive shell but as a dynamic component in a building’s thermal
regulation strategy.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Energy Efficiency

Building Information Modeling (BIM) represents a paradigm shift in the architecture,

engineering, and construction (AEC) industry by transforming conventional design
workflows into integrated, data-driven processes. Unlike traditional CAD systems,
which primarily focus on graphical representation, BIM incorporates rich, structured
data associated with every building component—enabling dynamic modeling,
simulation, and analysis across the project lifecycle. As a collaborative digital platform,
BIM facilitates interdisciplinary coordination among architects, structural and
mechanical engineers, energy analysts, and construction managers, thereby minimizing
errors, improving decision-making, and reducing redundant efforts. In the context of
energy-efficient building design, BIM plays a pivotal role by enabling early-stage
performance evaluation, material optimization, and life-cycle assessment.

The conventional approach to evaluating building performance—particularly thermal

and energy behavior—typically occurs post-design or even post-construction, resulting
in limited opportunities to influence core design parameters. BIM disrupts this timeline
by introducing performance analysis during the conceptual and schematic design
phases. This capability empowers designers to proactively assess the energy
implications of envelope materials, geometric configurations, and passive design
strategies before construction documents are finalized. Such early integration is
particularly valuable in the material selection process, where trade-offs among cost,
thermal performance, and environmental impact can be explicitly visualized and
quantified.

A key enabler of this functionality is the growing ecosystem of visual programming

tools, such as Dynamo for Autodesk Revit, which enhance BIM’s adaptability without
requiring advanced coding skills. These tools offer graphical interfaces for automating
tasks, customizing parameters, and conducting rule-based simulations. Through
Dynamo, designers can develop workflows to automate the extraction and evaluation of
thermal properties for envelope components, simulate alternative scenarios, and
integrate parametric design techniques. This democratization of computational design
allows users with minimal programming expertise to explore complex performance
questions and refine material choices based on quantitative feedback, thereby aligning
form and function with energy performance objectives.

Despite these advancements, challenges remain in fully realizing BIM’s potential for
energy-efficient design. A key limitation lies in the integration of BIM with Building
Energy Modeling (BEM) tools such as EnergyPlus, IES VE, or eQuest. These
simulation engines often require data inputs that are not natively supported by BIM
authoring software. Although the use of Industry Foundation Classes (IFC)—a vendor-
neutral data schema developed by buildingSMART—offers a pathway for information
exchange, current implementations frequently lack compatibility with energy simulation
requirements. Specifically, IFC entities such as IfcThermalMaterialProperties or
IfcMaterialLayerSetUsage provide a theoretical framework for thermal data storage but
are not always populated or utilized in practice, creating discontinuities between BIM
and performance analysis environments.

To overcome these limitations, several strategies have been proposed, including the
development of middleware platforms that serve as translators between BIM and BEM
tools, and the adoption of semantic enrichment techniques that embed additional
metadata into BIM models. Furthermore, research efforts are increasingly focused on
the creation of BIM-based decision support systems that integrate MCDM techniques to
enhance material selection processes. These systems combine real-time performance
data, stakeholder preferences, and optimization algorithms to provide evidence-based
guidance for selecting envelope components that balance thermal, environmental, and
economic criteria.

The integration of BIM into energy modeling workflows holds significant promise for
advancing the sustainability agenda in the building sector. When leveraged effectively,
BIM enables not only the technical analysis of energy performance but also the holistic
evaluation of life-cycle impacts, operational costs, and user comfort. This convergence
of modeling, analysis, and decision support establishes BIM as a cornerstone of next-
generation sustainable design practices—capable of informing every decision from
material selection to facility management.

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

The Nature of the Material Selection Problem

Selecting appropriate materials for building envelopes constitutes one of the most
critical and complex tasks in sustainable building design. This process goes far beyond
aesthetics or structural considerations; it directly affects the building’s thermal
performance, energy consumption, occupant comfort, environmental impact, and long-
term cost-effectiveness. As such, it represents a classic example of a multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) problem—where designers and stakeholders must evaluate
alternatives based on multiple, often conflicting, criteria under uncertainty.

Building Material Selection (BMS) is inherently multidisciplinary, requiring the

consideration of technical attributes (e.g., thermal conductivity, durability), economic
factors (e.g., cost, availability), environmental impacts (e.g., carbon footprint,
recyclability), and social or health-related factors (e.g., occupant safety, indoor air
quality). As Akadiri et al. (2013) emphasize, material choices not only influence the
structural performance of a building but also determine its environmental footprint and
the health of its occupants across the entire life cycle. The decision must account for
upstream processes (raw material extraction and manufacturing), midstream
performance (installation, thermal resistance, maintenance), and downstream impacts
(disposal, recyclability).

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods have traditionally been used to evaluate the
environmental impacts of materials across all stages of the product lifecycle (Arrigoni et
al., 2017; Marzouk et al., 2018; Najjar et al., 2017). However, LCA-based methods tend
to focus narrowly on environmental metrics while underrepresenting economic,
technical, and social dimensions. In addition, they often rely on highly detailed, context-
specific data that may be unavailable during the early design stages, making them time-
consuming, resource-intensive, and limited in scope. According to Reddy et al. (2019),
these challenges render LCA methods impractical for supporting rapid design decisions
under uncertainty, especially when multiple alternatives and stakeholder perspectives
are involved.

To address these limitations, MCDM approaches have been increasingly adopted in

BMS research and practice. These methods allow for the simultaneous consideration of
multiple quantitative and qualitative criteria, facilitating informed trade-offs among
competing objectives. As highlighted by Moussavi Nadoushani (2017), MCDM
techniques have gained traction in diverse domains—ranging from finance to aerospace
engineering—where decision environments are characterized by complexity,
uncertainty, and the presence of multiple stakeholders with divergent priorities.

Defining MCDM and Its Application in BMS

MCDM refers to a structured decision-making process in which one or more decision-
makers evaluate a finite set of alternatives based on multiple, and often conflicting,
criteria to identify the most preferred option(s). This process is particularly relevant in
the BMS context, where a wide variety of materials must be compared not only on the
basis of measurable performance metrics but also with regard to stakeholder values,
client preferences, and contextual constraints.

According to Nassar et al. (2003) and Xiong et al. (2018), the main stages of the
MCDM process include: (1) defining the decision goal; (2) identifying alternative
options and the decision-making group (DMG); (3) specifying relevant evaluation
criteria and assigning appropriate weights to each criterion; (4) assessing the
performance of each alternative with respect to each criterion; (5) reaching a consensus
among decision-makers through a structured Consensus Reaching Process (CRP); and
(6) applying an MCDM algorithm to derive the final ranking or selection.

What distinguishes MCDM in the context of BMS is the diversity and

incommensurability of the criteria. For example, thermal conductivity is measured on a
continuous quantitative scale (W/m·K), while aesthetic appeal or local availability may
be qualitative or subjective in nature. Moreover, criteria may be non-compensatory—
meaning that poor performance on a critical criterion (e.g., fire resistance) cannot be
offset by excellence in another (e.g., cost efficiency). These conditions significantly
complicate the aggregation of information and the prioritization of alternatives,
especially when decision-makers hold conflicting views or preferences.

To manage this complexity, MCDM approaches use weighting systems to assign

importance levels to each criterion. Weighting techniques fall into three main
categories:
 1. Subjective methods, such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic
Network Process (ANP), rely on expert judgment and stakeholder preferences to
determine weights.
2. Objective methods, such as entropy weighting, standard deviation analysis, and
maximizing deviation methods, use mathematical models to derive weights
based on the data distribution of alternative performances.
3. Integrated methods combine both subjective and objective inputs to balance
expert knowledge with empirical evidence (Dong et al., 2018; Hatefi, 2019).

Among these, subjective methods—particularly AHP—are widely favored in the

context of BMS due to their simplicity, transparency, and accessibility to non-technical
users. However, as Chen (2019) notes, these methods may struggle to fully capture
nuanced customer requirements, necessitating more adaptive, user-centric approaches.
In light of this, further research is warranted into hybrid models that better reflect the
evolving demands of sustainability-focused building design and the diverse expectations
of stakeholders.

Excellent. Here’s the expanded and academically deepened continuation of the MCDM
section, focusing on the classification of MCDM methods, their methodological
foundations, and real-world applicability to building material selection. After this, I’ll
proceed to the final parts: examples from literature and the Consensus Reaching Process
(CRP).

Classification of MCDM Methods and Selection Considerations

A wide variety of MCDM methods have been developed to address different types of
decision problems, each rooted in distinct mathematical frameworks and philosophical
assumptions. In the context of Building Material Selection (BMS), the choice of
MCDM method significantly influences the outcome and validity of the decision-
making process, particularly when the problem involves uncertain, subjective, or fuzzy
information.
Broadly speaking, MCDM methods can be categorized into four principal classes:

1. Utility Theory-Based Methods

Also referred to as “classical” or “compensatory” methods, these approaches are

grounded in the principle of maximizing utility. Each criterion is assigned a
utility score, and alternatives are ranked based on their aggregated scores across
all criteria. These methods assume that trade-offs among criteria are acceptable,
making them suitable when decision-makers are willing to compromise on one
criterion to gain in another. Prominent examples include:

o Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Decomposes complex problems into

a hierarchical structure and uses pairwise comparisons to derive relative
weights.
o Simple Additive Weighting (SAW): Calculates weighted sums of
normalized scores.
o Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS): Identifies alternatives closest to the ideal solution and farthest
from the worst-case scenario.
o VIKOR: Focuses on reaching a compromise solution by minimizing
group utility regret.
o COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (COPRAS) and MULTIMOORA:
Provide comparative analysis based on proportionality and multiple
objectives.

2. Outranking-Based Methods

These methods operate on the principle of pairwise dominance rather than

overall utility. They construct outranking relations by comparing how well one
alternative performs relative to another on a criterion-by-criterion basis. These
methods are particularly effective when criteria are incommensurable or when
decision-makers wish to avoid forced aggregation of criteria:
 o ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité): One of the
earliest outranking methods, it eliminates dominated alternatives.
o PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for
Enrichment Evaluations): Builds preference flows among alternatives.
o Best-Worst Method (BWM): A recent advancement where decision-
makers identify the best and worst criteria and conduct pairwise
comparisons with respect to them, reducing inconsistency.
3. Non-Classical Methods (Fuzzy, Stochastic, and Hybrid Approaches)

Recognizing the limitations of deterministic models, non-classical MCDM

methods introduce fuzzy logic, probabilistic models, and hybrid approaches to
handle imprecise, uncertain, or linguistically expressed data. These methods are
particularly valuable in early-stage design where detailed data is often
unavailable:

o Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS, and Fuzzy VIKOR allow decision-makers

to express preferences using linguistic terms (e.g., “high,” “medium,”
“low”) instead of exact numerical values.
o Stochastic MCDM incorporates probability distributions to account for
randomness in input data.
4. Multi-Objective Decision-Making (MODM)

While most MCDM techniques deal with discrete alternatives, MODM methods
handle continuous decision spaces with multiple objective functions. These are
particularly applicable in optimization scenarios where alternatives are generated
dynamically:

o Goal Programming, Evolutionary Algorithms, and Pareto Optimization

fall into this category.
o These methods are especially suitable when performance criteria are
defined as equations or simulations, such as those derived from energy
models or LCA tools.
Selecting the appropriate MCDM method depends on several factors, including the
nature of the data (qualitative vs. quantitative), the level of uncertainty, the decision
context (single or group decision-making), and the degree of compensability among
criteria. According to Chen (2019), three characteristics define the complexity of the
BMS decision space:

● Presence of qualitative scales: Many criteria, such as aesthetics or local

availability, are best described qualitatively, requiring translation into numerical
equivalents for analysis.

● Data normalization and loss of fidelity: Criteria measured on different scales

(e.g., dollars, W/m²K, kgCO₂e) must be normalized to allow comparison, which
may dilute meaningful distinctions.

● Non-compensation: Some criteria are non-negotiable—poor performance on

these cannot be offset by strengths in other areas (e.g., if a material fails fire
resistance standards, its low cost is irrelevant).

Recognizing these complexities helps in selecting the right decision model and avoiding
the application of overly simplistic tools to inherently complex problems.

Applications of MCDM in Building Material Selection: Review of Recent

Literature

The practical application of MCDM methodologies to Building Material Selection

(BMS) has gained significant traction in recent years, as researchers seek to develop
tools and frameworks that can accommodate multiple criteria, stakeholder perspectives,
and design constraints in a systematic and reproducible manner. The literature reveals a
growing diversity of approaches—ranging from optimization-based frameworks to
decision-support systems—each tailored to specific performance goals, material types,
and project contexts.
For instance, Hammad (2018) developed a bi-objective mixed-integer programming
model for selecting insulation materials used in external wall assemblies. The study
considered both thermal transmittance and embodied carbon as competing objectives,
allowing decision-makers to balance operational and embodied energy implications.
This dual-focus approach highlights the need to address lifecycle trade-offs and affirms
the importance of optimization under conflicting sustainability metrics.

Bostancıoğlu (2019, 2021) conducted a series of studies applying MCDM to the

evaluation of double-skin façades, a type of high-performance envelope system. Using
techniques such as AHP and TOPSIS, the author provided building designers with a
structured framework to assess various performance criteria including energy efficiency,
daylighting, aesthetics, and acoustic insulation. These studies underscore how MCDM
methods can be customized for complex building components, enabling practitioners to
explore performance trade-offs in envelope systems that offer both environmental and
architectural benefits.

Mohammadi (2022) proposed a hierarchical model for evaluating the relative

importance of BMS criteria in high-rise buildings. By integrating expert judgments and
performance benchmarks, the study developed a weighting matrix that could inform
early-stage material decisions. This approach demonstrates how context-specific
frameworks can support large-scale urban developments where material performance
must align with safety, environmental, and structural standards.

In another contribution, Mayhoub (2021) designed a comprehensive MCDM-based

framework for selecting green materials in envelope design. The model incorporated not
only performance and cost considerations but also social dimensions such as occupant
health, environmental justice, and waste minimization. This holistic perspective is
particularly aligned with global sustainability goals and emphasizes the importance of
integrating qualitative and normative criteria into technical decision-making processes.
Together, these studies illustrate the adaptability of MCDM methods in BMS
applications. Whether the goal is energy optimization, environmental impact reduction,
or stakeholder alignment, MCDM provides a flexible yet rigorous foundation for
navigating the inherent complexity of material choices in building design.

Consensus Reaching Process (CRP) in Multi-Stakeholder Environments

Although MCDM methods provide structured mechanisms for evaluating alternatives,

their effectiveness in real-world decision-making is often contingent upon achieving a
satisfactory level of consensus among diverse stakeholders. In building projects,
multiple decision-makers (DMs)—including clients, architects, engineers, contractors,
and sustainability consultants—may hold conflicting priorities and value different
performance attributes. As a result, reaching a shared understanding or collective
agreement becomes a critical component of the decision-making process.

The Consensus Reaching Process (CRP) refers to the structured negotiation and
adjustment of preferences among stakeholders to converge on a mutually acceptable
solution. CRP is particularly vital in BMS scenarios, where the Assessment Criteria
(ACs) often carry different weights for different actors. For example, a client may
prioritize cost and delivery time, while a sustainability consultant may emphasize low
embodied carbon or recyclability. In such contexts, conventional MCDM aggregation
techniques may obscure minority preferences or oversimplify stakeholder heterogeneity.

To address this, the concept of soft consensus was introduced by Kacprzyk (1986).
Unlike classical models that assume either complete agreement or disagreement, soft
consensus allows for partial convergence based on similarity or distance measures
between individual opinions. This approach captures the nuances of human judgment
and recognizes that complete unanimity is rare in complex decision-making
environments. Instead, decisions are guided by acceptable thresholds of agreement,
allowing for flexibility and realism.

The CRP based on soft consensus is typically an iterative and dynamic process,
mirroring real-life negotiation and dialogue. Stakeholders are encouraged to revise their
preferences through deliberation, facilitated workshops, or decision-support systems.
Similarity measures—such as Euclidean distance or cosine similarity—are used to
quantify the proximity of opinions, and consensus indicators help determine whether the
group has reached a satisfactory level of agreement. If not, further rounds of feedback
and adjustment are conducted.

This approach has been widely studied and applied in various domains. For instance:

● Palomares et al. (2013, 2014a, 2014b) proposed iterative consensus models

using fuzzy preference relations.

● Labella et al. (2018) integrated consensus models with stakeholder engagement

tools.

● Wu and Xu (2016b) and Rodríguez et al. (2018) examined the integration of

consensus models in group decision-making software systems.

● Singh and Benyoucef (2013) applied CRP in e-procurement contexts to resolve

trade-offs between buyers and suppliers.

In BMS, such CRP models are highly applicable. For example, they may be embedded
within a BIM-based MCDM system to guide envelope material selection by tracking
evolving stakeholder preferences and dynamically adjusting material rankings. When
employed effectively, consensus methods enhance transparency, increase stakeholder
satisfaction, and improve the overall legitimacy of the design decision.