Extended Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (E-FAHP): A General Approach

[EN] Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) methodologies have witnessed a growing development from the late 1980s until now, and countless FAHP based applications have been published in many fields including economics, finance, environment or engineering. In this context, the FAHP methodologies have been generally restricted to fuzzy numbers with linear type of membership functions (triangular numbers-TN-and trapezoidal numbers-TrN). This paper proposes an extended FAHP model (E-FAHP) where pairwise fuzzy comparison matrices are represented by a special type of fuzzy numbers referred to as (m,n)-trapezoidal numbers (TrN (m,n)) with nonlinear membership functions. It is then demonstrated that there are a significant number of FAHP approaches that can be reduced to the proposed E-FAHP structure. A comparative analysis of E-FAHP and Mikhailov's model is illustrated with a case study showing that E-FAHP includes linear and nonlinear fuzzy numbers.Reig-Mullor, J.; Pla Santamaría, D.; Garcia-Bernabeu, A. (2020). Extended Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (E-FAHP): A General Approach. Mathematics. 8(11):1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8112014S114811Chai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040Tavana, M., Zareinejad, M., Di Caprio, D., & Kaviani, M. A. (2016). An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and SWOT method for outsourcing reverse logistics. Applied Soft Computing, 40, 544-557. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.005Medasani, S., Kim, J., & Krishnapuram, R. (1998). An overview of membership function generation techniques for pattern recognition. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 19(3-4), 391-417. doi:10.1016/s0888-613x(98)10017-8Medaglia, A. L., Fang, S.-C., Nuttle, H. L. W., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). An efficient and flexible mechanism for constructing membership functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 139(1), 84-95. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00157-6Mikhailov, L. (2003). Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134(3), 365-385. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(02)00383-4Appadoo, S. S. (2014). Possibilistic Fuzzy Net Present Value Model and Application. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, 1-11. doi:10.1155/2014/865968Mikhailov, L., & Tsvetinov, P. (2004). Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Applied Soft Computing, 5(1), 23-33. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2004.04.001Hepu Deng. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. FUZZ-IEEE’99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315). doi:10.1109/fuzzy.1999.793038Van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(83)80082-7Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2Enea, M., & Piazza, T. (2004). Project Selection by Constrained Fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 3(1), 39-62. doi:10.1023/b:fodm.0000013071.63614.3dKrejčí, J., Pavlačka, O., & Talašová, J. (2016). A fuzzy extension of Analytic Hierarchy Process based on the constrained fuzzy arithmetic. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 16(1), 89-110. doi:10.1007/s10700-016-9241-0Cakir, O., & Canbolat, M. S. (2008). A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 1367-1378. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.041Isaai, M. T., Kanani, A., Tootoonchi, M., & Afzali, H. R. (2011). Intelligent timetable evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3718-3723. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.030Büyüközkan, G., & Güleryüz, S. (2016). A new integrated intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making approach for product development partner selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 102, 383-395. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.05.038Zheng, G., Zhu, N., Tian, Z., Chen, Y., & Sun, B. (2012). Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and humid environments. Safety Science, 50(2), 228-239. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.08.042Calabrese, A., Costa, R., & Menichini, T. (2013). Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual Capital assets: An application to the ICT service industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(9), 3747-3755. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.081Ishizaka, A., & Nguyen, N. H. (2013). Calibrated fuzzy AHP for current bank account selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(9), 3775-3783. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.089Somsuk, N., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2014). A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 198-210. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.007Chan, H. K., Wang, X., & Raffoni, A. (2014). An integrated approach for green design: Life-cycle, fuzzy AHP and environmental management accounting. The British Accounting Review, 46(4), 344-360. doi:10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.004Tan, R. R., Aviso, K. B., Huelgas, A. P., & Promentilla, M. A. B. (2014). Fuzzy AHP approach to selection problems in process engineering involving quantitative and qualitative aspects. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 92(5), 467-475. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2013.11.005Rezaei, J., Fahim, P. B. M., & Tavasszy, L. (2014). Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(18), 8165-8179. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.005Song, Z., Zhu, H., Jia, G., & He, C. (2014). Comprehensive evaluation on self-ignition risks of coal stockpiles using fuzzy AHP approaches. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 32, 78-94. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2014.08.002Dong, M., Li, S., & Zhang, H. (2015). Approaches to group decision making with incomplete information based on power geometric operators and triangular fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(21), 7846-7857. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.007Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104, 375-390. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001Mosadeghi, R., Warnken, J., Tomlinson, R., & Mirfenderesk, H. (2015). Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 54-65. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.10.001Lupo, T. (2016). A fuzzy framework to evaluate service quality in the healthcare industry: An empirical case of public hospital service evaluation in Sicily. Applied Soft Computing, 40, 468-478. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.010Tuljak-Suban, D., & Bajec, P. (2018). The Influence of Defuzzification Methods to Decision Support Systems Based on Fuzzy AHP with Scattered Comparison Matrix: Application to 3PLP Selection as a Case Study. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 26(03), 475-491. doi:10.1142/s021848851850023xAkbar, M. A., Shameem, M., Mahmood, S., Alsanad, A., & Gumaei, A. (2020). Prioritization based Taxonomy of Cloud-based Outsource Software Development Challenges: Fuzzy AHP analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 95, 106557. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106557Jung, H. (2011). A fuzzy AHP–GP approach for integrated production-planning considering manufacturing partners. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5833-5840. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.039Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S. S., & Thakur, L. S. (2012). Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8182-8192. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.149Abdullah, L., & Zulkifli, N. (2015). Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource management. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(9), 4397-4409. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.021Akkaya, G., Turanoğlu, B., & Öztaş, S. (2015). An integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MOORA approach to the problem of industrial engineering sector choosing. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(24), 9565-9573. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.061Kutlu, A. C., & Ekmekçioğlu, M. (2012). Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 61-67. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.044Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2341-2354. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.061Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M. S., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105-116. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003Patil, S. K., & Kant, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(2), 679-693. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.093Sun, L., Ma, J., Zhang, Y., Dong, H., & Hussain, F. K. (2016). Cloud-FuSeR: Fuzzy ontology and MCDM based cloud service selection. Future Generation Computer Systems, 57, 42-55. doi:10.1016/j.future.2015.11.025Ar, I. M., Erol, I., Peker, I., Ozdemir, A. I., Medeni, T. D., & Medeni, I. T. (2020). Evaluating the feasibility of blockchain in logistics operations: A decision framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 158, 113543. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113543Yalcin, N., Bayrakdaroglu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2012). Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 350-364. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.024Chang, S.-C., Tsai, P.-H., & Chang, S.-C. (2015). A hybrid fuzzy model for selecting and evaluating the e-book business model: A case study on Taiwan e-book firms. Applied Soft Computing, 34, 194-204. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.05.011Li, N., & Zhao, H. (2016). Performance evaluation of eco-industrial thermal power plants by using fuzzy GRA-VIKOR and combination weighting techniques. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 169-183. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.113Mandic, K., Delibasic, B., Knezevic, S., & Benkovic, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30-37. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.036Li, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2012). Supplier selection using axiomatic fuzzy set and TOPSIS methodology in supply chain management. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 11(2), 147-176. doi:10.1007/s10700-012-9117-xKaya, Ö., Alemdar, K. D., & Çodur, M. Y. (2020). A novel two stage approach for electric taxis charging station site selection. Sustainable Cities and Society, 62, 102396. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102396Chen, J.-F., Hsieh, H.-N., & Do, Q. H. (2015). Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach. Applied Soft Computing, 28, 100-108. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.050Javanbarg, M. B., Scawthorn, C., Kiyono, J., & Shahbodaghkhan, B. (2012). Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 960-966. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.095Che, Z. H., Wang, H. S., & Chuang, C.-L. (2010). A fuzzy AHP and DEA approach for making bank loan decisions for small and medium enterprises in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(10), 7189-7199. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.010Krejčí, J. (2015). Additively reciprocal fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices and multiplicative fuzzy priorities. Soft Computing, 21(12), 3177-3192. doi:10.1007/s00500-015-2000-2Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2014). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(4), 749-761. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2013.2272585Mikhailov, L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(3), 341-349. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.260089

A framework for the selection of the right nuclear power plant

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

Parametric optimization of the femoropopliteal artery stent design based on numerical analysis

High-failure rates of Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD) stenting were reported due to the inability of certain stent strut configuration to accommodate severe biomechanical environment of the Femoro-Popliteal Artery (FPA) such as bends, twists, and axially compresses during limb flexion. The unique of mechanical deformation environment in FPA has been considered one of main factors affecting the durability of the FPA stent and reducing the stent life. Consequently, various optimization techniques have been developed to improve the mechanical performance of the FPA stent. The present work shown that, the first-two of twelve FPA resemble stent models stent models have been selected with a net score of 3.65 Model I and, with a net score of 3.55 Model II via applying Pictorial Selection Method. Finite Element Method (FEM) of optimization study based-parameterization has been conducted for stent strut dimensions, stents were compared in terms of force-stress behavior. Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method has been utilized to identify the best combination of strut dimensions. The strut thickness parameterization results were in relation T α 1/σ (T is strut thickness) for both models with all mechanical loading modes. Moreover, the strut width parameterization results were in relation W α 1/σ (W is strut width) for both models with all mechanical loading modes. Whereas, the strut length parameterization results were in relation L α σ in case of Model I and, L α 1/σ (L is strut length) in case of Model II, under axial loads, while under three-point bending and torsion loading modes L α σ for both models, under radial compression the relations were L α 1/σ in case of Model I and, L α σ in case of Model II. The best combination of strut dimension in the thickness case was t4 = 230 µm for both models, in strut width were w3=0.180, and w4= 0.250 mm for Model I and Model II, respectively, and in strut length were l2= 1.40, and l2= 1.75 mm for Model I and Model II, respectively. In conclusions, the mathematical selection approach and the consistent mathematical approach of MCDM has been proposed, also the mechanical performance has been improved for parameterized stent models

Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders‟ decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AHP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach

WHY FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH FOR TRANSPORT PROBLEMS?

The evaluation of transport projects has become increasingly complex. Different aspects have to be taken into account and the consequences of the problems are usually far reaching and the different policy alternatives are numerous and difficult to predict. Several pressure or action groups have also emerged causing an even more complex decision making process. The use of multi criteria analysis for the evaluation of transport projects has increased due to this increasing complexity of the problem situation. At the same time, the importance of stakeholders within this evaluation process should have been recognized. Researches on transport projects are generally carried out to provide information to policymakers that have to operate within restrictive parameters (political, economical, social, etc…). Researchers should therefore take greater account of the different priorities of stakeholders such as policymakers, private enterprises and households. These stakeholders should be incorporated explicitly in the evaluation process. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is one of the Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making methods. It can be applied in a very broad range of applications of decision problems. Logistics, urban planning, public politics, marketing, finance, education, economics are a part of this wide application area. In transport subjects it can be used for the evaluation of transport policy measures or decision making problems. Due to its wide range application area, it has been an exciting research subject for many different field researchers. The aim of this paper is to introduce AHP method and to offer how to benefit it for the preference of urban planners in transport problems. This paper is composed of two main parts. First part consists of the literature survey regarding with the AHP and its application areas. The advantage of methods had been mentioned. Second part focuses on a sample application of AHP technique. The study uses AHP technique to determine the selection criteria in the transhipment port selection decision-making process. Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process, Multi criteria analysis, Transshipment port selection.

A comparative study of multiple-criteria decision-making methods under stochastic inputs

This paper presents an application and extension of multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods to account for stochastic input variables. More in particular, a comparative study is carried out among well-known and widely-applied methods in MCDM, when applied to the reference problem of the selection of wind turbine support structures for a given deployment location. Along with data from industrial experts, six deterministic MCDM methods are studied, so as to determine the best alternative among the available options, assessed against selected criteria with a view toward assigning confidence levels to each option. Following an overview of the literature around MCDM problems, the best practice implementation of each method is presented aiming to assist stakeholders and decision-makers to support decisions in real-world applications, where many and often conflicting criteria are present within uncertain environments. The outcomes of this research highlight that more sophisticated methods, such as technique for the order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) and Preference Ranking Organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE), better predict the optimum design alternative

Classification of railway bridges based on criticality and vulnerability factors

Bridges are currently rated individually for maintenance and repair action according to the structural conditions of their elements. Dealing with thousands of bridges and the many factors that cause deterioration, makes this rating process extremely complicated. The current simplified but practical methods are not accurate enough. On the other hand, the sophisticated, more accurate methods are only used for a single or particular bridge type. It is therefore necessary to develop a practical and accurate rating system for a network of bridges. The first most important step in achieving this aim is to classify bridges based on the differences in nature and the unique characteristics of the critical factors and the relationship between them, for a network of bridges. Critical factors and vulnerable elements will be identified and placed in different categories. This classification method will be used to develop a new practical rating method for a network of railway bridges based on criticality and vulnerability analysis. This rating system will be more accurate and economical as well as improve the safety and serviceability of railway bridges