Comparison of Several Aggregation Techniques for Deriving Analytic Network Process Weights
- PDF / 990,305 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 57 Downloads / 169 Views
Comparison of Several Aggregation Techniques for Deriving Analytic Network Process Weights Nehal Elshaboury 1
& Tarek Attia
1
& Mohamed Marzouk
2
Received: 3 January 2020 / Accepted: 22 October 2020/ # Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract
Water pipelines are exposed to severe aging and deterioration challenges. The weights of importance of deterioration factors shall be estimated to predict the condition of underground water pipelines. Analytic network process (ANP) is one of the most common multiple criteria decision making techniques. The fuzzy set theory has been employed to tackle the vagueness and imprecision in human judgments. Accordingly, the overarching aim of this research is computing the weights of importance of these factors using fuzzy ANP (FANP). Chang’s extent analysis method is one of the most frequently used algorithms in FANP. For group decision making, two aggregation approaches are considered, namely geometric mean (GEO) and minimum-maximum (MIN-MAX). The performance of the modified extent analysis method is evaluated against the original method using four evaluation measures. These measures are satisfactory index, group minimum violations, group Euclidean distance, and distance between weights. Most of the evaluation measures indicate that the modified extent analysis (MIN-MAX) method exhibits better results than other methods. A water distribution network in Shaker AlBahery, Egypt is used to demonstrate the application of the proposed model. Keywords Water pipelines . Condition assessment . Group decision making . Fuzzy analytic network process . Multiple criteria decision making . Chang extent analysis
* Nehal Elshaboury [email protected] Tarek Attia [email protected] Mohamed Marzouk [email protected]
1
Construction and Project Management Research Institute, Housing and Building National Research Center, P.O. Box: 1770, Giza, Egypt
2
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, P.O. Box: 12613, Giza, Egypt
Elshaboury N. et al.
1 Introduction Infrastructure management decisions are based on multiple conflicting criteria (i.e., social, environmental, and economic aspects) and objectives (i.e., technical feasibility versus restricted budget constraints) with reference to a set of available alternatives (Marcelo et al. 2016). These decisions are associated with different levels of uncertain, ambiguous, and incomplete data. Furthermore, these decisions might incorporate multiple stakeholders interested in opposing courses of action (Huang et al. 2011). As such, multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods can be considered as a promising application in the arena of infrastructure management (Kabir et al. 2014). These techniques share some common characteristics, which are: applicability, reliability, transparency, and combination with other decision making methods (Mardani et al. 2015). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) proposed by Saaty (Saaty 1980) is a MCDM technique through which experts provide pairwise comparisons to calcul
Data Loading...
