60,462 research outputs found

    Sustainability assessment of concrete bridge deck designs in coastal environments using neutrosophic criteria weights

    Full text link
    "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering on 02/07/2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1676791."[EN] Essential infrastructures such as bridges are designed to provide a long-lasting and intergenerational functionality. In those cases, sustainability becomes of paramount importance when the infrastructure is exposed to aggressive environments, which can jeopardise their durability and lead to significant maintenance demands. The assessment of sustainability is however often complex and uncertain. The present study assesses the sustainability performance of 16 alternative designs of a concrete bridge deck in a coastal environment on the basis of a neutrosophic group analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The use of neutrosophic logic in the field of multi-criteria decision-making, as a generalisation of the widely used fuzzy logic, allows for a proper capture of the vagueness and uncertainties of the judgements emitted by the decision-makers. TOPSIS technique is then used to aggregate the different sustainability criteria. From the results, it is derived that only the simultaneous consideration of the economic, environmental and social life cycle impacts of a design shall lead to adequate sustainable designs. Choices made based on the optimality of a design in only some of the sustainability pillars will lead to erroneous conclusions. The use of concrete with silica fume has resulted in a sustainability performance of 46.3% better than conventional concrete designs.The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER funding (Project: BIA2017-85098-R).Navarro, I.; Yepes, V.; Martí, J. (2020). Sustainability assessment of concrete bridge deck designs in coastal environments using neutrosophic criteria weights. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. 16(7):949-967. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1676791S949967167Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Mohamed, M., & Chilamkurti, N. (2018). Three-way decisions based on neutrosophic sets and AHP-QFD framework for supplier selection problem. Future Generation Computer Systems, 89, 19-30. doi:10.1016/j.future.2018.06.024Abdullah, L., & Najib, L. (2014). Sustainable energy planning decision using the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: choosing energy technology in Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 35(4), 360-377. doi:10.1080/14786451.2014.907292Ali, M. S., Aslam, M. S., & Mirza, M. S. (2015). A sustainability assessment framework for bridges – a case study: Victoria and Champlain Bridges, Montreal. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 1-14. doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1120754Allacker, K. (2012). Environmental and economic optimisation of the floor on grade in residential buildings. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(6), 813-827. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0402-2Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87-96. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3Barone, G., & Frangopol, D. M. (2014). Life-cycle maintenance of deteriorating structures by multi-objective optimization involving reliability, risk, availability, hazard and cost. Structural Safety, 48, 40-50. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.02.002Biswas, P., Pramanik, S., & Giri, B. C. (2015). TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(3), 727-737. doi:10.1007/s00521-015-1891-2Bolturk, E., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A novel interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with cosine similarity measure. Soft Computing, 22(15), 4941-4958. doi:10.1007/s00500-018-3140-yBuckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2017). Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1222-1238. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.051Cebeci, U. (2009). Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile industry by using balanced scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8900-8909. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.046Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., & Ventura, A. (2010). LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(12), 1231-1240. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001Chu, T.-C., & Tsao, C.-T. (2002). Ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid point and original point. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 43(1-2), 111-117. doi:10.1016/s0898-1221(01)00277-2Cope, A., Bai, Q., Samdariya, A., & Labi, S. (2013). Assessing the efficacy of stainless steel for bridge deck reinforcement under uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulation. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(7), 634-647. doi:10.1080/15732479.2011.602418De la Fuente, A., Pons, O., Josa, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4762-4770. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002Deli, I., & Şubaş, Y. (2016). A ranking method of single valued neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi-attribute decision making problems. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 8(4), 1309-1322. doi:10.1007/s13042-016-0505-3Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W.-C., & Xu, Y. (2010). Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 281-289. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.003Dubois, D. (2011). The role of fuzzy sets in decision sciences: Old techniques and new directions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 184(1), 3-28. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2011.06.003Eamon, C. D., Jensen, E. A., Grace, N. F., & Shi, X. (2012). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Alternative Reinforcement Materials for Bridge Superstructures Considering Cost and Maintenance Uncertainties. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 24(4), 373-380. doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000398Enea, M., & Piazza, T. (2004). Project Selection by Constrained Fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 3(1), 39-62. doi:10.1023/b:fodm.0000013071.63614.3dGarcía-Segura, T., Penadés-Plà, V., & Yepes, V. (2018). Sustainable bridge design by metamodel-assisted multi-objective optimization and decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 904-915. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.177García-Segura, T., & Yepes, V. (2016). Multiobjective optimization of post-tensioned concrete box-girder road bridges considering cost, CO2 emissions, and safety. Engineering Structures, 125, 325-336. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.012García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., Frangopol, D. M., & Yang, D. Y. (2017). Lifetime reliability-based optimization of post-tensioned box-girder bridges. Engineering Structures, 145, 381-391. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.013Gervásio, H., & Simões da Silva, L. (2012). A probabilistic decision-making approach for the sustainable assessment of infrastructures. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7121-7131. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.032Guzmán-Sánchez, S., Jato-Espino, D., Lombillo, I., & Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M. (2018). Assessment of the contributions of different flat roof types to achieving sustainable development. Building and Environment, 141, 182-192. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.063Heravi, G., Fathi, M., & Faeghi, S. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making method for optimal selection of sustainable industrial building options focused on petrochemical projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2999-3013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.168Invidiata, A., Lavagna, M., & Ghisi, E. (2018). Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Building and Environment, 139, 58-68. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041Jakiel, P., & Fabianowski, D. (2015). FAHP model used for assessment of highway RC bridge structural and technological arrangements. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4054-4061. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.039Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Onar, S. C., & Oztaysi, B. (2018). A novel trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information axiom approach: An application to multicriteria landfill site selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 67, 157-172. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2017.09.009Kere, K. J., & Huang, Q. (2019). Life-Cycle Cost Comparison of Corrosion Management Strategies for Steel Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 24(4), 04019007. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0001361Liang, R., Wang, J., & Zhang, H. (2017). A multi-criteria decision-making method based on single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic preference relations with complete weight information. Neural Computing and Applications, 30(11), 3383-3398. doi:10.1007/s00521-017-2925-8Liu, P., & Liu, X. (2016). The neutrosophic number generalized weighted power averaging operator and its application in multiple attribute group decision making. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 9(2), 347-358. doi:10.1007/s13042-016-0508-0Martí, J. V., García-Segura, T., & Yepes, V. (2016). Structural design of precast-prestressed concrete U-beam road bridges based on embodied energy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120, 231-240. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.024Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2014). Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 34-48. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.044Mistry, M., Koffler, C., & Wong, S. (2016). LCA and LCC of the world’s longest pier: a case study on nickel-containing stainless steel rebar. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(11), 1637-1644. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1080-2Moazami, D., Behbahani, H., & Muniandy, R. (2011). Pavement rehabilitation and maintenance prioritization of urban roads using fuzzy logic. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12869-12879. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.079Mosalam, K. M., Alibrandi, U., Lee, H., & Armengou, J. (2018). Performance-based engineering and multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable and resilient building design. Structural Safety, 74, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.03.005Navarro, I., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. (2018). Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Preventive Strategies Applied to Prestressed Concrete Bridges Exposed to Chlorides. Sustainability, 10(3), 845. doi:10.3390/su10030845Navarro, I. J., Martí, J. V., & Yepes, V. (2019). Reliability-based maintenance optimization of corrosion preventive designs under a life cycle perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 74, 23-34. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.10.001Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 50-63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & González-Vidosa, F. (2018). Life cycle impact assessment of corrosion preventive designs applied to prestressed concrete bridge decks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 698-713. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.110Nogueira, C. G., Leonel, E. D., & Coda, H. B. (2012). Reliability algorithms applied to reinforced concrete structures durability assessment. Revista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais, 5(4), 440-450. doi:10.1590/s1983-41952012000400003Pamučar, D., Badi, I., Sanja, K., & Obradović, R. (2018). A Novel Approach for the Selection of Power-Generation Technology Using a Linguistic Neutrosophic CODAS Method: A Case Study in Libya. Energies, 11(9), 2489. doi:10.3390/en11092489Penadés-Plà, V., García-Segura, T., Martí, J., & Yepes, V. (2016). A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design. Sustainability, 8(12), 1295. doi:10.3390/su8121295Peng, J., Wang, J., & Yang, W.-E. (2016). A multi-valued neutrosophic qualitative flexible approach based on likelihood for multi-criteria decision-making problems. International Journal of Systems Science, 48(2), 425-435. doi:10.1080/00207721.2016.1218975Petcherdchoo, A. (2015). Environmental Impacts of Combined Repairs on Marine Concrete Structures. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 13(3), 205-213. doi:10.3151/jact.13.205PRASCEVIC, N., & PRASCEVIC, Z. (2017). APPLICATION OF FUZZY AHP FOR RANKING AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(8), 1123-1135. doi:10.3846/13923730.2017.1388278Pryn, M. R., Cornet, Y., & Salling, K. B. (2015). APPLYING SUSTAINABILITY THEORY TO TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT USING A MULTIPLICATIVE AHP DECISION SUPPORT MODEL. TRANSPORT, 30(3), 330-341. doi:10.3846/16484142.2015.1081281Rashidi, M., Samali, B., & Sharafi, P. (2015). A new model for bridge management: Part B: decision support system for remediation planning. Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(1), 46-53. doi:10.1080/14488353.2015.1092642Sabatino, S., Frangopol, D. M., & Dong, Y. (2015). Life cycle utility-informed maintenance planning based on lifetime functions: optimum balancing of cost, failure consequences and performance benefit. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 12(7), 830-847. doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1064968Safi, M., Sundquist, H., & Karoumi, R. (2015). Cost-Efficient Procurement of Bridge Infrastructures by Incorporating Life-Cycle Cost Analysis with Bridge Management Systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 20(6), 04014083. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000673Sajedi, S., & Huang, Q. (2019). Reliability-based life-cycle-cost comparison of different corrosion management strategies. Engineering Structures, 186, 52-63. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.018Sierra, L. A., Pellicer, E., & Yepes, V. (2016). Social Sustainability in the Lifecycle of Chilean Public Infrastructure. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(5), 05015020. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001099Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Bayesian network method for decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 521-534. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140Sodenkamp, M. A., Tavana, M., & Di Caprio, D. (2018). An aggregation method for solving group multi-criteria decision-making problems with single-valued neutrosophic sets. Applied Soft Computing, 71, 715-727. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2018.07.020Stewart, M. G., Estes, A. C., & Frangopol, D. M. (2004). Bridge Deck Replacement for Minimum Expected Cost Under Multiple Reliability Constraints. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(9), 1414-1419. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1414)Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., & Pagan, R. (2011). Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(5), 389-391. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0287-5Tahmasebi Birgani, Y., & Yazdandoost, F. (2018). An Integrated Framework to Evaluate Resilient-Sustainable Urban Drainage Management Plans Using a Combined-adaptive MCDM Technique. Water Resources Management, 32(8), 2817-2835. doi:10.1007/s11269-018-1960-2Tesfamariam, S., & Sadiq, R. (2006). Risk-based environmental decision-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 21(1), 35-50. doi:10.1007/s00477-006-0042-9Wang, Y.-M., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2006). On the normalization of interval and fuzzy weights. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(18), 2456-2471. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2006.06.008Yang, Z., Shi, X., Creighton, A. T., & Peterson, M. M. (2009). Effect of styrene–butadiene rubber latex on the chloride permeability and microstructure of Portland cement mortar. Construction and Building Materials, 23(6), 2283-2290. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.11.011Ye, J. (2013). Multicriteria decision-making method using the correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic environment. International Journal of General Systems, 42(4), 386-394. doi:10.1080/03081079.2012.761609Ye, J. (2017). Subtraction and Division Operations of Simplified Neutrosophic Sets. Information, 8(2), 51. doi:10.3390/info8020051Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2015). A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(4), 1024-1036. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-xZadeh, L. A. (1973). Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision Processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3(1), 28-44. doi:10.1109/tsmc.1973.5408575Zavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. M. (2016). Development of TOPSIS Method to Solve Complicated Decision-Making Problems — An Overview on Developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(03), 645-682. doi:10.1142/s021962201630001

    Decision making with Dempster-Shafer belief structure and the OWAWA operator

    Get PDF
    [EN] A new decision making model that uses the weighted average and the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operator in the Dempster-Shafer belief structure is presented. Thus, we are able to represent the decision making problem considering objective and subjective information and the attitudinal character of the decision maker. For doing so, we use the ordered weighted averaging ¿ weighted average (OWAWA) operator. It is an aggregation operator that unifies the weighted average and the OWA in the same formulation. This approach is generalized by using quasi-arithmetic means and group decision making techniques. An application of the new approach in a group decision making problem concerning political management of a country is also developed.We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments that have improved the quality of the paper. Support from the Spanish Ministry of Education under project JC2009-00189 , the University of Barcelona (099311) and the European Commission (PIEFGA-2011-300062) is gratefully acknowledgedMerigó, JM.; Engemann, KJ.; Palacios Marqués, D. (2013). Decision making with Dempster-Shafer belief structure and the OWAWA operator. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 19(sup 1):S100-S118. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.869517SS100S11819sup 1Antuchevičienė, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Zakarevičius, A. (2010). MULTIPLE CRITERIA CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS CONSIDERING RELATIONS BETWEEN CRITERIA / DAUGIATIKSLIAI STATYBOS VALDYMO SPRENDIMAI ATSIŽVELGIANT Į RODIKLIŲ TARPUSAVIO PRIKLAUSOMYBĘ. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 109-125. doi:10.3846/tede.2010.07Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). PROJECT MANAGEMENT BY MULTIMOORA AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR TRANSITION ECONOMIES / PROJEKTŲ VADYBA SU MULTIMOORA KAIP PRIEMONĖ PEREINAMOJO LAIKOTARPIO ŪKIAMS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 5-24. doi:10.3846/tede.2010.01Dempster, A. P. (1967). Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multivalued Mapping. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38(2), 325-339. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177698950ENGEMANN, K. J., MILLER, H. E., & YAGER, R. R. (1996). DECISION MAKING WITH BELIEF STRUCTURES: AN APPLICATION IN RISK MANAGEMENT. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 04(01), 1-25. doi:10.1142/s0218488596000020ENGEMANN, K. J., FILEV, D. P., & YAGER, R. R. (1996). MODELLING DECISION MAKING USING IMMEDIATE PROBABILITIES. International Journal of General Systems, 24(3), 281-294. doi:10.1080/03081079608945123Engemann, K. J., & Miller, H. E. (2009). Critical infrastructure and smart technology risk modelling using computational intelligence. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, 1(1), 91. doi:10.1504/ijbcrm.2009.028953Fodor, J., Marichal, J.-L., & Roubens, M. (1995). Characterization of the ordered weighted averaging operators. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 3(2), 236-240. doi:10.1109/91.388176Han, Z., & Liu, P. (2011). A FUZZY MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHOD UNDER RISK WITH UNKNOWN ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTS / NERAIŠKUSIS MAŽESNĖS RIZIKOS DAUGIATIKSLIS SPRENDIMŲ PRIĖMIMO METODAS SU NEŽINOMAIS PRISKIRIAMAIS REIKŠMINGUMAIS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 246-258. doi:10.3846/20294913.2011.580575Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). SELECTION OF RATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHOD BY APPLYING NEW STEP‐WISE WEIGHT ASSESSMENT RATIO ANALYSIS (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243-258. doi:10.3846/jbem.2010.12Liu, P. (2009). MULTI‐ATTRIBUTE DECISION‐MAKING METHOD RESEARCH BASED ON INTERVAL VAGUE SET AND TOPSIS METHOD. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15(3), 453-463. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.453-463Liu, P. (2011). A weighted aggregation operators multi-attribute group decision-making method based on interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 1053-1060. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.144Merigó, J. M. (2011). A unified model between the weighted average and the induced OWA operator. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 11560-11572. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.034Merigó, J. M. (2012). The probabilistic weighted average and its application in multiperson decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 27(5), 457-476. doi:10.1002/int.21531Merigó, J. M., & Casanovas, M. (2009). Induced aggregation operators in decision making with the Dempster-Shafer belief structure. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 24(8), 934-954. doi:10.1002/int.20368Merigó, J. M., & Casanovas, M. (2010). The uncertain induced quasi-arithmetic OWA operator. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 26(1), 1-24. doi:10.1002/int.20444MERIGÓ, J. M., & CASANOVAS, M. (2011). THE UNCERTAIN GENERALIZED OWA OPERATOR AND ITS APPLICATION TO FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(02), 211-230. doi:10.1142/s0219622011004300MERIGÓ, J. M., CASANOVAS, M., & MARTÍNEZ, L. (2010). LINGUISTIC AGGREGATION OPERATORS FOR LINGUISTIC DECISION MAKING BASED ON THE DEMPSTER-SHAFER THEORY OF EVIDENCE. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 18(03), 287-304. doi:10.1142/s0218488510006544MERIGO, J., & GILLAFUENTE, A. (2009). The induced generalized OWA operator. Information Sciences, 179(6), 729-741. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2008.11.013Merigó, J. M., & Gil-Lafuente, A. M. (2010). New decision-making techniques and their application in the selection of financial products. Information Sciences, 180(11), 2085-2094. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.01.028Merigó, J. M., & Wei, G. (2011). PROBABILISTIC AGGREGATION OPERATORS AND THEIR APPLICATION IN UNCERTAIN MULTI-PERSON DECISION-MAKING / TIKIMYBINIAI SUMAVIMO OPERATORIAI IR JŲ TAIKYMAS PRIIMANT GRUPINIUS SPRENDIMUS NEAPIBRĖŽTOJE APLINKOJE. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 335-351. doi:10.3846/20294913.2011.584961Podvezko, V. (2009). Application of AHP technique. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 10(2), 181-189. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.181-189Reformat, M., & Yager, R. R. (2007). Building ensemble classifiers using belief functions and OWA operators. Soft Computing, 12(6), 543-558. doi:10.1007/s00500-007-0227-2Srivastava, R. P., & Mock, T. J. (Eds.). (2002). Belief Functions in Business Decisions. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-1798-0Torra, V. (1997). The weighted OWA operator. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 12(2), 153-166. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-111x(199702)12:23.0.co;2-pWei, G.-W. (2011). Some generalized aggregating operators with linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(1), 32-38. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2011.02.007Wei, G., Zhao, X., & Lin, R. (2010). Some Induced Aggregating Operators with Fuzzy Number Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information and their Applications to Group Decision Making. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 3(1), 84-95. doi:10.1080/18756891.2010.9727679Xu, Z. (2005). An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 20(8), 843-865. doi:10.1002/int.20097Xu, Z. (2009). A Deviation-Based Approach to Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(1), 57-76. doi:10.1007/s10726-009-9164-zXu, Z. S., & Da, Q. L. (2003). An overview of operators for aggregating information. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(9), 953-969. doi:10.1002/int.10127Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18(1), 183-190. doi:10.1109/21.87068YAGER, R. R. (1992). DECISION MAKING UNDER DEMPSTER-SHAFER UNCERTAINTIES. International Journal of General Systems, 20(3), 233-245. doi:10.1080/03081079208945033Yager, R. R. (1993). Families of OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 59(2), 125-148. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(93)90194-mYager, R. R. (1998). Including importances in OWA aggregations using fuzzy systems modeling. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 6(2), 286-294. doi:10.1109/91.669028Yager, R. R. (2004). Generalized OWA Aggregation Operators. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 3(1), 93-107. doi:10.1023/b:fodm.0000013074.68765.97Yager, R. R., Engemann, K. J., & Filev, D. P. (1995). On the concept of immediate probabilities. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 10(4), 373-397. doi:10.1002/int.4550100403Yager, R. R., & Kacprzyk, J. (Eds.). (1997). The Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-6123-1Yager, R. R., Kacprzyk, J., & Beliakov, G. (Eds.). (2011). Recent Developments in the Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators: Theory and Practice. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17910-5Yager, R. R., & Liu, L. (Eds.). (2008). Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-44792-4Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING (MCDM) METHODS IN ECONOMICS: AN OVERVIEW / DAUGIATIKSLIAI SPRENDIMŲ PRIĖMIMO METODAI EKONOMIKOJE: APŽVALGA. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397-427. doi:10.3846/20294913.2011.593291Zavadskas, E. K., Vilutienė, T., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitienė, J. (2010). CONTRACTOR SELECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKS BY APPLYING SAW‐G AND TOPSIS GREY TECHNIQUES. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(1), 34-55. doi:10.3846/jbem.2010.03Zeng, S., & Su, W. (2011). Intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted distance operator. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(8), 1224-1232. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.05.013Zhang, X., & Liu, P. (2010). METHOD FOR AGGREGATING TRIANGULAR FUZZY INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY INFORMATION AND ITS APPLICATION TO DECISION MAKING / NUMANOMŲ NEAPIBRĖŽTŲJŲ AIBIŲ TEORIJA IR JOS TAIKYMAS PRIIMANT SPRENDIMUS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 280-290. doi:10.3846/tede.2010.18Zhao, H., Xu, Z., Ni, M., & Liu, S. (2010). Generalized aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(1), 1-30. doi:10.1002/int.20386Zhou, L.-G., & Chen, H. (2010). Generalized ordered weighted logarithm aggregation operators and their applications to group decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/int.20419Zhou, L.-G., & Chen, H.-Y. (2011). Continuous generalized OWA operator and its application to decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 168(1), 18-34. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2010.05.009Zhou, L., & Chen, H. (2012). A generalization of the power aggregation operators for linguistic environment and its application in group decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 26, 216-224. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.08.004Zhou, L., Chen, H., & Liu, J. (2011). Generalized Multiple Averaging Operators and their Applications to Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(2), 331-358. doi:10.1007/s10726-011-9267-1Zhou, L., Chen, H., & Liu, J. (2012). Generalized power aggregation operators and their applications in group decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62(4), 989-999. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2011.12.025Zhou, L.-G., Chen, H.-Y., Merigó, J. M., & Gil-Lafuente, A. M. (2012). Uncertain generalized aggregation operators. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 1105-1117. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.11

    TOPSIS-RTCID for range target-based criteria and interval data

    Full text link
    [EN] The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is receiving considerable attention as an essential decision analysis technique and becoming a leading method. This paper describes a new version of TOPSIS with interval data and capability to deal with all types of criteria. An improved structure of the TOPSIS is presented to deal with high uncertainty in engineering and engineering decision-making. The proposed Range Target-based Criteria and Interval Data model of TOPSIS (TOPSIS-RTCID) achieves the core contribution in decision making theories through a distinct normalization formula for cost and benefits criteria in scale of point and range target-based values. It is important to notice a very interesting property of the proposed normalization formula being opposite to the usual one. This property can explain why the rank reversal problem is limited. The applicability of the proposed TOPSIS-RTCID method is examined with several empirical litreture’s examples with comparisons, sensitivity analysis, and simulation. The authors have developed a new tool with more efficient, reliable and robust outcomes compared to that from other available tools. The complexity of an engineering design decision problem can be resolved through the development of a well-structured decision making method with multiple attributes. Various decision approches developed for engineering design have neglected elements that should have been taken into account. Through this study, engineering design problems can be resolved with greater reliability and confidence.Jahan, A.; Yazdani, M.; Edwards, K. (2021). TOPSIS-RTCID for range target-based criteria and interval data. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering. 9(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2021.13323OJS11491Ahn, B.S. (2017). The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements. Omega, 67, 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.05.004Alemi-Ardakani, M., Milani, A.S., Yannacopoulos, S., Shokouhi, G. (2016). On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites. Expert Systems With Applications, 46, 426-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.11.003Amiri, M., Nosratian, N.E., Jamshidi, A., Kazemi, A. (2008). Developing a new ELECTRE method with interval data in multiple attribute decision making problems. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8, 4017-4028. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.4017.4028Bahraminasab, M., Jahan, A. (2011). Material selection for femoral component of total knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR. Materials & Design, 32, 4471-4477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.046Baradaran, V., Azarnia, S. (2013). An Approach to Test Consistency and Generate Weights from Grey Pairwise Matrices in Grey Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of Grey System, 25.Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 13051-13069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056Cables, E., Lamata, M.T., Verdegay, J.L. (2018). FRIM-Fuzzy Reference Ideal Method in Multicriteria Decision Making. In Collan, M. & Kacprzyk, J. (Eds.) Soft Computing Applications for Group Decision-making and Consensus Modeling. Cham, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_19Çakır, S. (2016). An integrated approach to machine selection problem using fuzzy SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1189-3Celen, A. (2014). Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: with an application to Turkish deposit banking market. Informatica, 25, 185-208. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2014.10Celik, E., Erdogan, M., Gumus, A. (2016). An extended fuzzy TOPSIS-GRA method based on different separation measures for green logistics service provider selection. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13, 1377-1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0977-4Dymova, L., Sevastjanov, P., Tikhonenko, A. (2013). A direct interval extension of TOPSIS method. Expert Systems With Applications, 40, 4841-4847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.022Garca-Cascales, M.S., Lamata, M.T. (2012). On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2015). Comprehensive MULTIMOORA method with target-based attributes and integrated significant coefficients for materials selection in biomedical applications. Materials & Design, 87, 949-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.087Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2016). Interval MULTIMOORA method with target values of attributes based on interval distance and preference degree: biomaterials selection. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 13, 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0176-4Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). Interval target-based VIKOR method supported on interval distance and preference degree for machine selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 57, 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.10.018Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Sayadi, M.K. (2016). Extension of MULTIMOORA method with interval numbers: An application in materials selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40, 1372-1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.07.019Hajiagha, S.H.R., Hashemi, S.S., Zavadskas, E.K., Akrami, H. (2012). Extensions of LINMAP model for multi criteria decision making with grey numbers. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18, 636-650. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.740518Hazelrigg, G.A. (2003). Validation of engineering design alternative selection methods. Engineering Optimization, 35, 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215031000097059Hu, J., Du, Y., Mo, H., Wei, D., Deng, Y. (2016). A modified weighted TOPSIS to identify influential nodes in complex networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 444, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2015.09.028Huang, Y., Jiang, W. (2018). Extension of TOPSIS Method and its Application in Investment. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43, 693-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2736-3Jahan, A. (2018). Developing WASPAS-RTB method for range target-based criteria: toward selection for robust design. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 1362-1387. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1295288Jahan, A., Bahraminasab, M., Edwards, K.L. (2012). A target-based normalization technique for materials selection. Materials & Design, 35, 647-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.09.005Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L. (2013). VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria. Materials & Design, 47, 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.072Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L. (2015). A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: Improving the materials selection process in engineering design. Materials & Design, 65, 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.022Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L., Bahraminasab, M. (2016). Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of engineering materials in product design, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Ismail, M.Y., Sapuan, S.M., Bahraminasab, M. (2011). A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Materials & Design, 32, 1215-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.10.015Jahan, A., Zavadskas, E.K. (2018). ELECTRE-IDAT for design decision-making problems with interval data and target-based criteria. Soft Computing, 23, 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3501-6Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Davoodi, A.R. (2009). Extension of TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data: Interval efficiency. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 1137-1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.07.009Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, F.H., Izadikhah, M. (2006). An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 175, 1375-1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.08.048Kasirian, M., Yusuff, R. (2013). An integration of a hybrid modified TOPSIS with a PGP model for the supplier selection with interdependent criteria. International Journal of Production Research, 51, 1037-1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.663107Kuo, T. (2017). A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of Operational Research, 260, 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.052Liang, D., Xu, Z. (2017). The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 60, 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.06.034Liao, H., Wu, X. (2019). DNMA: A double normalization-based multiple aggregation method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making. Omega, 94. 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.04.001Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Zhen, L., Fan, X.J. (2014). A novel hybrid multiple criteria decision making model for material selection with targetbased criteria. Materials & Design, 60, 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.071Maghsoodi, A.I., Maghsoodi, A.I., Poursoltan, P., Antucheviciene, J., Turskis, Z. (2019). Dam construction material selection by implementing the integrated SWARA-CODAS approach with target-based attributes. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 19, 1194-1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2019.06.010Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., Nemes, J.A. (2005). The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 29, 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0473-1Peldschus, F. (2009). The analysis of the quality of the results obtained with the methods of multi-criteria decisions. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15, 580-592. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.580-592Peldschus, F. (2018). Recent findings from numerical analysis in multi-criteria decision making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 1695-1717. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1356761Perez, E.C., Lamata, M., Verdegay, J. (2016). RIM-Reference Ideal Method in Multicriteria Decision Making. Information Sciences, 337- 338, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.12.011Sayadi, M.K., Heydari, M., Shahanaghi, K. (2009). Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33, 2257-2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2008.06.002Sen, P., Yang, J.B. (1998). MCDM and the Nature of Decision Making in Design, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3020-8_2Sevastianov, P. (2007). Numerical methods for interval and fuzzy number comparison based on the probabilistic approach and Dempster- Shafer theory. Information Sciences, 177, 4645-4661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.05.001Shanian, A., Savadogo, O. (2009). A methodological concept for material selection of highly sensitive components based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert Systems With Applications, 36, 1362-1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.11.052Shen, F., Ma, X., Li, Z., Xu, Z., Cai, D. (2018). An extended intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method based on a new distance measure with an application to credit risk evaluation. Information Sciences, 428, 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.10.045Shishank, S., Dekkers, R. (2013). Outsourcing: decision-making methods and criteria during design and engineering. Production Planning & Control, 24, 318-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.648544Shouzhen, Z., Yao, X. (2018). A method based on TOPSIS and distance measures for hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 969-983. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1216472Stanujkic, D., Magdalinovic, N., Jovanovic, R., Stojanovic, S. (2012). An objective multi-criteria approach to optimization using MOORA method and interval grey numbers. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18, 331-363. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.676996Suder, A., Kahraman, C. (2018). Multiattribute evaluation of organic and inorganic agricultural food investments using fuzzy TOPSIS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 844-858. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1216905Tilstra, A.H., Backlund, P.B., Seepersad, C.C., Wood, K.L. (2015). Principles for designing products with flexibility for future evolution. International Journal of Mass Customisation, 5, 22-54. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMASSC.2015.069597Tsaur, R.C. (2011) Decision risk analysis for an interval TOPSIS method. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218, 4295-4304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.10.001Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E.K. (2010) A novel method for multiple criteria analysis: grey additive ratio assessment (ARAS-G) method. Informatica, 21, 597-610. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2010.307Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y. (2009) On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 1221-1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.06.019Ye, J. (2015) An extended TOPSIS method for multiple attribute group decision making based on single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 28, 247-255. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-141295Yue, Z. (2013) Group decision making with multi-attribute interval data. Information Fusion, 14, 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2013.01.00

    A methodology for the selection of new technologies in the aviation industry

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this report is to present a technology selection methodology to quantify both tangible and intangible benefits of certain technology alternatives within a fuzzy environment. Specifically, it describes an application of the theory of fuzzy sets to hierarchical structural analysis and economic evaluations for utilisation in the industry. The report proposes a complete methodology to accurately select new technologies. A computer based prototype model has been developed to handle the more complex fuzzy calculations. Decision-makers are only required to express their opinions on comparative importance of various factors in linguistic terms rather than exact numerical values. These linguistic variable scales, such as ‘very high’, ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’ and ‘very low’, are then converted into fuzzy numbers, since it becomes more meaningful to quantify a subjective measurement into a range rather than in an exact value. By aggregating the hierarchy, the preferential weight of each alternative technology is found, which is called fuzzy appropriate index. The fuzzy appropriate indices of different technologies are then ranked and preferential ranking orders of technologies are found. From the economic evaluation perspective, a fuzzy cash flow analysis is employed. This deals quantitatively with imprecision or uncertainties, as the cash flows are modelled as triangular fuzzy numbers which represent ‘the most likely possible value’, ‘the most pessimistic value’ and ‘the most optimistic value’. By using this methodology, the ambiguities involved in the assessment data can be effectively represented and processed to assure a more convincing and effective decision- making process when selecting new technologies in which to invest. The prototype model was validated with a case study within the aviation industry that ensured it was properly configured to meet the

    Fuzzy investment decision support for brownfield redevelopment

    Get PDF
    Tato disertační práce se zaměřuje na problematiku investování a podporu rozhodování pomocí moderních metod. Zejména pokud jde o analýzu, hodnocení a výběr tzv. brownfieldů pro jejich redevelopment (revitalizaci). Cílem této práce je navrhnout univerzální metodu, která usnadní rozhodovací proces. Proces rozhodování je v praxi komplikován též velkým počet relevantních parametrů ovlivňujících konečné rozhodnutí. Navržená metoda je založena na využití fuzzy logiky, modelování, statistické analýzy, shlukové analýzy, teorie grafů a na sofistikovaných metodách sběru a zpracování informací. Nová metoda umožňuje zefektivnit proces analýzy a porovnávání alternativních investic a přesněji zpracovat velký objem informací. Ve výsledku tak bude zmenšen počet prvků množiny nejvhodnějších alternativních investic na základě hierarchie parametrů stanovených investorem.This dissertation focuses on decision making, investing and brownfield redevelopment. Especially on the analysis, evaluation and selection of previously used real estates suitable for commercial use. The objective of this dissertation is to design a method that facilitates the decision making process with many possible alternatives and large number of relevant parameters influencing the decision. The proposed method is based on the use of fuzzy logic, modeling, statistic analysis, cluster analysis, graph theory and sophisticated methods of information collection and processing. New method allows decision makers to process much larger amount of information and evaluate possible investment alternatives efficiently.

    Sustainability ranking of desalination plants using Mamdani Fuzzy Logic Inference Systems

    Get PDF
    As water desalination continues to expand globally, desalination plants are continually under pressure to meet the requirements of sustainable development. However, the majority of desalination sustainability research has focused on new desalination projects, with limited research on sustainability performance of existing desalination plants. This is particularly important while considering countries with limited resources for freshwater such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as it is heavily reliant on existing desalination infrastructure. In this regard, the current research deals with the sustainability analysis of desalination processes using a generic sustainability ranking framework based on Mamdani Fuzzy Logic Inference Systems. The fuzzy-based models were validated using data from two typical desalination plants in the UAE. The promising results obtained from the fuzzy ranking framework suggest this more in-depth sustainability analysis should be beneficial due to its flexibility and adaptability in meeting the requirements of desalination sustainability

    A framework for the selection of the right nuclear power plant

    Get PDF
    Civil nuclear reactors are used for the production of electrical energy. In the nuclear industry vendors propose several nuclear reactor designs with a size from 35–45 MWe up to 1600–1700 MWe. The choice of the right design is a multidimensional problem since a utility has to include not only financial factors as levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and internal rate of return (IRR), but also the so called “external factors” like the required spinning reserve, the impact on local industry and the social acceptability. Therefore it is necessary to balance advantages and disadvantages of each design during the entire life cycle of the plant, usually 40–60 years. In the scientific literature there are several techniques for solving this multidimensional problem. Unfortunately it does not seem possible to apply these methodologies as they are, since the problem is too complex and it is difficult to provide consistent and trustworthy expert judgments. This paper fills the gap, proposing a two-step framework to choosing the best nuclear reactor at the pre-feasibility study phase. The paper shows in detail how to use the methodology, comparing the choice of a small-medium reactor (SMR) with a large reactor (LR), characterised, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (2006), by an electrical output respectively lower and higher than 700 MWe

    Evaluating strategies for implementing industry 4.0: a hybrid expert oriented approach of B.W.M. and interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy T.O.D.I.M.

    Get PDF
    open access articleDeveloping and accepting industry 4.0 influences the industry structure and customer willingness. To a successful transition to industry 4.0, implementation strategies should be selected with a systematic and comprehensive view to responding to the changes flexibly. This research aims to identify and prioritise the strategies for implementing industry 4.0. For this purpose, at first, evaluation attributes of strategies and also strategies to put industry 4.0 in practice are recognised. Then, the attributes are weighted to the experts’ opinion by using the Best Worst Method (BWM). Subsequently, the strategies for implementing industry 4.0 in Fara-Sanat Company, as a case study, have been ranked based on the Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy (IVIF) of the TODIM method. The results indicated that the attributes of ‘Technology’, ‘Quality’, and ‘Operation’ have respectively the highest importance. Furthermore, the strategies for “new business models development’, ‘Improving information systems’ and ‘Human resource management’ received a higher rank. Eventually, some research and executive recommendations are provided. Having strategies for implementing industry 4.0 is a very important solution. Accordingly, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are a useful tool for adopting and selecting appropriate strategies. In this research, a novel and hybrid combination of BWM-TODIM is presented under IVIF information
    corecore