Decision aid system founded on nonlinear valuation, dispersion-based weighting and correlative aggregation for wire rope selection in slope stability cable nets

A decision aid system to address hierarchical decision-making problems is developed.Levels of satisfaction are valuated using the Beta Cumulative Distribution Function.Subcriteria are weighted based on their variability using measures of dispersion.Dependencies between subcriteria are quantified through correlation coefficients.The system is applied to the selection of wire rope in slope stability cable nets. This paper presents a decision aid system to address hierarchically structured decision-making problems based on the determination of the satisfaction provided by a group of alternatives in relation to multiple conflicting subcriteria grouped into criteria. The system combines the action of three new methods related to the following concepts: nonlinear valuation, dispersion-based weighting and correlative aggregation. The first includes five value functions that allow the conversion of the ratings of the alternatives regarding the subcriteria into the satisfaction they produce in a versatile and simple manner through the Beta Cumulative Distribution Function. The use of measures of dispersion to weight the subcriteria by giving more importance to those factors that can make a difference due to their heterogeneity is revised to validate it when the values are not normally distributed. Dependencies between subcriteria are taken into account through the determination of their correlation coefficients, whose incorporation adjusts the results provided by the system to favour those alternatives having a balanced behaviour with respect to conflicting aspects. The overall satisfaction provided by each alternative is determined using a prioritisation operator to avoid compensation between criteria when aggregating the subcriteria. The system was tested through a novel field of application such as the selection of wire rope to form slope stability cable nets.

[1]  Reza Baradaran Kazemzadeh,et al.  PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[3]  Arjun K. Gupta,et al.  Handbook of beta distribution and its applications , 2004 .

[4]  Lawrence D. Miles,et al.  Techniques Of Value Analysis And Engineering , 1961 .

[5]  E. Rowland.  Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[6]  José-Tomás San-José Lombera,et al.  A system approach to the environmental analysis of industrial buildings , 2010 .

[7]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Semih Onüt,et al.  Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. , 2008, Waste management.

[9]  Daniel Jato-Espino,et al.  A fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria model for the selection of urban pervious pavements , 2014, Expert Syst. Appl..

[10]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  Prioritized aggregation operators , 2008, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[11]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[12]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[13]  Klaus Feyrer,et al.  Wire Ropes: Tension, Endurance, Reliability , 2007 .

[14]  N. Smirnov.  Table for Estimating the Goodness of Fit of Empirical Distributions , 1948 .

[15]  Metin Dagdeviren,et al.  Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[16]  Oriol Pons,et al.  Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain , 2012 .

[17]  L. Herngren,et al.  Analysis of heavy metals in road-deposited sediments. , 2006, Analytica chimica acta.

[18]  Tien-Chin Wang,et al.  A fuzzy TOPSIS approach with subjective weights and objective weights , 2007 .

[19]  De-Li Yang,et al.  Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing , 2007, Comput. Oper. Res..

[20]  Lyle F. Bachman.  Statistical analyses for language assessment , 2004 .

[21]  Kamal Ahmed,et al.  Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management , 2014 .

[22]  Tien-Chin Wang,et al.  Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[23]  Ying Luo,et al.  Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making , 2010, Math. Comput. Model..

[24]  Ward Edwards,et al.  How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[25]  Paul C. Nutt.  Comparing methods for weighting decision criteria , 1980 .

[26]  Oriol Pons,et al.  Integrated sustainability assessment method applied to structural concrete columns , 2013 .

[27]  Adiel Teixeira de Almeida,et al.  Multicriteria decision model for outsourcing contracts selection based on utility function and ELECTRE method , 2007, Comput. Oper. Res..