Javascript is required
1.
V. Pifat, River Crossing / Prelaz Preko Reka. Serbia, Belgrade: Military Publishing House, 1980. [Google Scholar]
2.
D. V. Shunyakov, O. N. Bondarev, D. N. Bagin, and K. S. Fokin, Crossings: Study Guide. Russia, Yekaterinburg: Ural University Press, 2017. [Google Scholar]
3.
T. L. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process. USA, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. [Google Scholar]
4.
D. Pamučar, Ž. Stević, and S. Sremac, “A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM),” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 393, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5.
M. Žižović and D. Pamučar, “New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model,” Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6.
D. Pamucar, M. Deveci, I. Gokasar, M. Işık, and M. Zizovic, “Circular economy concepts in urban mobility alternatives using integrated DIBR method and fuzzy Dombi CoCoSo model,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 323, p. 129096, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
D. Pamučar, M. Žižović, S. Biswas, and D. Božanić, “A new logarithm methodology of additive weights (LMAW) for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: Application in logistics,” Facta Univ. Ser.: Mech. Eng., vol. 19, no. 3, p. 361, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8.
D. Božanić and D. Pamučar, Overview of the Method Defining Interrelationships Between Ranked Criteria II and Its Application in Multi-criteria Decision-Making. Singapore: Springer, 2023. [Google Scholar]
9.
C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1981. [Google Scholar]
10.
J. P. Brans, P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal, “How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228–238, 1986. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11.
E. Zavadskas and A. Kaklauskas, Determination of an Efficient Contractor by Using the New Method of Multicriteria Assessment. UK, London: Routledge, 1996. [Google Scholar]
12.
S. Opricovic, Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems / Višekriterijumska optimizacija u gradjevinarstvu. Serbia, Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering, 1998. [Google Scholar]
13.
W. Brauers and E. Zavadskas, “The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy,” Control Cybern., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445–469, 2006. [Google Scholar]
14.
E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, “A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 159–172, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15.
M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, and Z. Turskis, “Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS),” Informatica, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 435–451, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16.
M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene, “A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making,” Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 25–44, 2016. [Google Scholar]
17.
E. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, J. Šaparauskas, and Z. Turskis, “MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: Verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions,” Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 5–20, 2013. [Google Scholar]
18.
D. Pamučar, Lj. Vasin, and V. Lukovac, “Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid DEMATEL-MARICA model,” in Proceedings of the XVI Internacional Scientific-Expert Conference of Railways RAILCON, Niš, Serbia, pp. 89–92. [Google Scholar]
19.
D. Pamučar and G. Ćirović, “The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC),” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 3016–3028, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20.
Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee, “Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS),” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 140, p. 106231, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
D. I. Božanić and D. S. Pamučar, “Evaluating locations for river crossing using fuzzy logic,” Vojnotehnicki glasnik, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 129–145, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
D. Tešić, D. Božanić, A. Puška, A. Milić, and D. Marinković, “Development of the MCDM fuzzy LMAW-grey MARCOS model for selection of a dump truck,” Rep. Mech. Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
D. Pamucar, D. Bozanic, and A. Milic, “Selection of a course of action by obstacle employment group based on a fuzzy logic system,” Yugosl. J. Oper. Res., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 75–90, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
D. Tešić, M. Radovanović, D. Božanić, D. Pamucar, A. Milić, and A. Puška, “Modification of the DIBR and MABAC methods by applying rough numbers and its application in making decisions,” Information, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 353, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
D. Pamučar, D. Božanić, B. Djorović, and A. Milić, “Modelling of the fuzzy logical system for offering support in making decisions within the engineering units of the Serbian Army,” Int. J. Phys. Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 592–609, 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
D. Tešić, D. Božanić, D. Stojković, A. Puška, and I. Stojanović, “DIBR–DOMBI–FUZZY MAIRCA model for strategy selection in the system of defense,” Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc., vol. 2023, pp. 1–14, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
M. Radovanović, A. Ranđelović, and Ž. Jokić, “Application of hybrid model fuzzy AHP - VIKOR in selection of the most efficient procedure for rectification of the optical sight of the long-range rifle,” Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 131–148, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
28.
D. Tešić Z., D. Božanić I., D. Pamučar S., and J. Din, “DIBR - Fuzzy MARCOS model for selecting a location for a heavy mechanized bridge,” Vojnotehnicki glasnik, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 314–339, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
29.
M. Arif, B. Wirjodirdjo, I. M. J. Astika, and A. Rivai, “Analysis of selection of arsenal warehouse locations to support Kri operations in the Koarmada Ii area analysis of arsenal storage location selection to support the operations of Indonesian Navy Warship (Kri) in the 2nd Naval Fleet Territory,” Journal ASRO, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 40, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
30.
D. Božanić, A. Milić, D. Tešić, W. Sałabun, and D. Pamučar, “D NUMBERS – FUCOM – FUZZY RAFSI model for selecting the group of construction machines for enabling mobility,” Facta Univ. Ser.: Mech. Eng., vol. 19, no. 3, p. 447, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
31.
Y. P. Xu, H. Li, and M. Lyu, “Research on the location problem of unmanned border and coastal air defense anti-aircraft gun,” in 2021 IEEE 5th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
32.
D. Pamučar, D. Božanić, and B. Ðorović, Fuzzy Logic in Decision Making Process in the Armed Forces of Serbia. Germany, Saarbrücken: LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2011. [Google Scholar]
33.
Ž. Stević, D. K. Das, and M. Kopić, “A novel multiphase model for traffic safety evaluation: A case study of South Africa,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2021, pp. 1–22, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
34.
A. Puška, Ž. Stević, and I. Stojanović, “Selection of sustainable suppliers using the Fuzzy MARCOS method,” Curr. Chin. Sci., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 218–229, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
35.
Ž. Stević, E. Durmić, M. Gajić, D. Pamučar, and A. Puška, “A novel Multi-Criteria Decision-Making model: Interval rough SAW method for sustainable supplier selection,” Information, vol. 10, no. 10, p. 292, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
36.
S. Bošković, L. Švadlenka, M. Dobrodolac, S. Jovčić, and M. Zanne, “An Extended AROMAN Method for Cargo Bike Delivery Concept Selection,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
37.
S. J. Ghoushchi, M. N. A. Ab Rahman, M. Soltanzadeh, M. Z. Rafique, H. Hernadewita, F. Y. Marangalo, and A. R. Ismail, “Assessing sustainable passenger transportation systems to address climate change based on MCDM methods in an uncertain environment,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 3558, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
38.
M. B. Bouraima, N. A. Tengecha, Ž. Stević, V. Simić, and Y. J. Qiu, “An integrated fuzzy MCDM model for prioritizing strategies for successful implementation and operation of the bus rapid transit system,” Ann. Oper. Res., pp. 0254–5330, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
39.
J. G. Liu, B. M. Gu, and J. H. Chen, “Enablers for maritime supply chain resilience during pandemic: An integrated MCDM approach,” Transp. Res. Part A: Pol. Pract., vol. 175, p. 103777, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
40.
K. Kabirifar, M. Ashour, M. Yazdani, A. Mahdiyar, and M. Malekjafarian, “Cybernetic-parsimonious MCDM modeling with application to the adoption of Circular Economy in waste management,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 139, p. 110186, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
41.
A. Puška, A. Štilić, and I. Stojanović, “Approach for multi-criteria ranking of Balkan countries based on the index of economic freedom,” J. Decis. Anal. Intell. Comput., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
42.
F. Ecer and S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, “Evaluating economic freedom via a multi-criteria MEREC-DNMA model-based composite system: Case of OPEC countries,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1158–1181, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
43.
I. Badi, Ž. Stević, and M. B. Bouraima, “Overcoming obstacles to renewable energy development in Libya: An MCDM approach towards effective strategy formulation,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
44.
I. Badi and A. Abdulshahed, “Sustainability performance measurement for Libyan Iron and Steel Company using Rough AHP,” J. Decis. Anal. Intell. Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–34, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
45.
Ö. F. Görçün, D. Pamucar, and S. Biswas, “The blockchain technology selection in the logistics industry using a novel MCDM framework based on Fermatean fuzzy sets and Dombi aggregation,” Inf. Sci., vol. 635, pp. 345–374, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
46.
A. Gamal and M. Mohamed, “A hybrid MCDM approach for industrial robots selection for the automotive industry,” Neutrosoph. Syst. Appl., vol. 4, pp. 1–11, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
47.
D. Pamučar, B. Đorović, D. Božanić, and G. Ćirović, “Modification of the dynamic scale of marks in analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network approach (ANP) through application of fuzzy approach,” Sci. Res. Essays, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 24–37, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
48.
A. H. Alamoodi, B. B. Zaidan, O. S. Albahri, S. Garfan, I. Y. Y. Ahmaro, R. T. Mohammed, A. A. Zaidan, A. R. Ismail, A. S. Albahri, F. Momani, M. S. Al-Samarraay, A. N. Jasim, and R.Q.Malik, “Systematic review of MCDM approach applied to the medical case studies of COVID-19: trends, bibliographic analysis, challenges, motivations, recommendations, and future directions,” Complex Intell. Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 4705–4731, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
49.
J. F. Ding and L. M. Hsu, “Electrocardiogram monitor supplier selection based on fuzzy MCDM evaluation method,” Int. J. Innovative Comput. Inf. Control, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 465–486, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
50.
R. Sharma, G. K. Mahanti, G. Panda, A. Rath, S. Dash, S. Mallik, and R. feng Hu, “A framework for detecting thyroid cancer from ultrasound and histopathological images using deep learning, meta-heuristics, and MCDM algorithms,” J. Imaging, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 173, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
51.
J. l. Jin and H. Garg, “Intuitionistic fuzzy three-way ranking-based TOPSIS approach with a novel entropy measure and its application to medical treatment selection,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 180, p. 103459, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
52.
M. Mokarram, H. R. Pourghasemi, and T. M. Pham, “Identification of suitable location to cultivate grape based on disease infestation using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and remote sensing,” Ecol. Inform., vol. 76, p. 102142, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
53.
M. Ramchandran, S. Chinnasamy, and M. Selvam, “Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, groundwater quality status in relation to MCDM system pollution,” J. Mater. Charact., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 40–47, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
54.
W. Xiang, K. L. Li, F. Dong, Y. Zhang, Q. Zeng, L. Jiang, D. W. Zhang, Y. L. Huang, L. Xiao, Z. Zhang, and C. F. Zhang, “Development of a multicriteria decision-making model for evaluating hybrid offspring in the sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas L.) breeding process,” Breed. Sci., vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 246–260, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
55.
M. Rahimi, H. V. Thanh, I. Ebrahimzade, M. H. Abbaspour-Fard, and A. Rohani, “A multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach to determine the synthesizing routes of biomass-based carbon electrode material in supercapacitors,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 397, p. 136606, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
56.
Sonia, Sunita, R. K. Verma, T. Ghosh, and R. K. Gaur, “Agricultural land suitability categorization and evaluation using GIS Assisted AHP in the Arid Western Plain Zone of Rajasthan, India,” Indian J. Agric. Res., vol. 57, no. 4, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
57.
D. Božanić, I. Epler, A. Puška, S. Biswas, D. Marinković, and S. Koprivica, “Application of the DIBR II – rough MABAC decision-making model for ranking methods and techniques of lean organization systems management in the process of technical maintenance,” Facta Univ. Ser.: Mech. Eng., 2023. [Google Scholar]
58.
T. Senapati and R. R. Yager, “Fermatean fuzzy sets,” J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 663–674, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
59.
M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, M. Hashemi-Tabatabaei, E. K. Zavadskas, and A. Kaklauskas, “A new decision-making approach based on Fermatean fuzzy sets and WASPAS for green construction supplier evaluation,” Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 12, p. 2202, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
60.
T. Senapati and R. R. Yager, “Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 85, pp. 112–121, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
61.
J. M. Zhou, T. Baležentis, and D. Streimikiene, “Normalized weighted Bonferroni Harmonic Mean-Based intuitionistic fuzzy operators and their application to the sustainable selection of search and rescue robots,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 218, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
62.
B. Srđević, Z. Srđević, and K. Suvočarev, “Analitički Hijerarhijski Proces: Individualna i grupna konzistentnost donosilaca odluka,” Vodoprivreda, vol. 41, no. 1–3, pp. 13–21, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Search
Open Access
Research article

A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Pontoon Bridge Selection: An Application of the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA Approach

duško tešić*,
darko božanić,
aleksandar milić
Military Academy, University of Defence, 11042 Belgrade, Serbia
Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering
|
Volume 2, Issue 4, 2023
|
Pages 212-223
Received: 09-01-2023,
Revised: 10-07-2023,
Accepted: 10-13-2023,
Available online: 10-19-2023
View Full Article|Download PDF

Abstract:

In military operations, the proficient overcoming of water barriers is paramount, with sub-optimal execution potentially leading to significant human and equipment casualties. In this context, global armed forces accord considerable emphasis to the selection of appropriate mechanisms for water obstacle overcoming. This study elucidates the adoption of a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach for the selection of optimal pontoon bridge sets for military applications. Criteria identification was undertaken by seven distinguished experts, leading to the determination of weight coefficients using the Defining Interrelationships Between Ranked criteria II (DIBR II) method. Expert assessments were subsequently aggregated utilizing the Normalized Weighted Bonferroni Mean (NWBM) operator. The Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA) method, operationalized within the Fermatean Fuzzy (FF) environment, was harnessed for the discernment of the best alternative. An analysis of the sensitivity of the study's findings with respect to variations in criteria weighting, coupled with a comparative exploration, led to the inference that the proposed MCDM model boasts stability. However, it was noted that the model exhibits sensitivity to shifts in criteria weight coefficients, underscoring its utility as a valuable aid for decision-makers, especially in the domain of pontoon bridge set selection.

Keywords: Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, Defining Interrelationships Between Ranked criteria II, Normalized Weighted Bonferroni Mean, Fermatean Fuzzy (FF), Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis, Selection

1. Introduction

Historically, as organized human communities manifested an intrinsic desire to expand territories, the imperative to overcome natural water barriers arose. These barriers, formidable in their essence, demanded innovation from these communities: initial solutions were found in swimming, which later evolved to the construction of varied watercraft. Coinciding with the inception of rudimentary military units, specialized brigades dedicated to circumventing these water impediments were established, equipped with intricate apparatuses tailored for the task [1]. Present-day military operations worldwide acknowledge the gravity of this combat action, which, given its intricate nuances, is often regarded as one of the most formidable combat challenges [1]. Furthermore, many military entities, beyond amphibious capabilities, are endowed with pontoon parks, encompassing an array of technical assets such as pontoons, vehicles, watercraft, and auxiliary tools, conceptualized for scaffold and bridge assembly [1], [2].

For decision-makers, the procurement of such assets designed to overcome water impediments presents a multifaceted challenge. The complexity arises from the plethora of dimensions or criteria by which these means are evaluated. Effective decision-making in this domain necessitates reliance on intricate tools for decision support, especially those adept at handling uncertainty and imprecision. Given the multidimensional nature of the problem at hand, the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods emerge as the apt tools for informed decision-making. These methods incorporate a variety of mathematical models and tools within the ambit of MCDM.

Typically, the resolution of an MCDM problem can be delineated into distinct steps: 1) Criteria identification pivotal to decision-making; 2) Ascertainment of criteria weight coefficients, denoting the influence exerted by each criterion on the final judgement; 3) Establishment of the initial decision-making matrix; 4) Employment of mathematical strategies for discerning the optimal solution; and 5) Selection of said optimal solution. To date, an extensive array of methods have been introduced. Some cater to determining criteria weight coefficients [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], while others focus on the discernment of the optimal choice amongst a myriad of possibilities [3], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. The application of MCDM methodologies across diverse sectors has been documented extensively in previous research, as elucidated in Table 1.

Table 1. The problem of choice using MCDM methods – A brief literature review

Field of Application

References

Military

[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]

Transportation-engineering

[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

Economy

[40], [41], [42], [43]

Industry

[44], [45], [46], [47]

Medicine

[48], [49], [50], [51]

Agricultural and biological-sciences

[52], [53], [54], [55], [56]

In this paper, the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA MCDM model (Figure 1) is presented for the selection of the optimal set of pontoon bridge for the needs of the military.

The model consists of the following stages: 1) Identification of criteria and their weight coefficients using the DIBR II method; 2) Choosing the optimal alternative using the FF MAIRCA method; 3) Sensitivity analysis of the output results of the method; and 4) Comparative analysis.

Figure 1. MCDM model DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA
Note: This figure was prepared by the authors.

2. Methodology

In alignment with the phases delineated in Figure 1, the subsequent sections elucidate the methods integrated within the MCDM model. Additionally, the I operators, pivotal for the aggregation of expert opinions, are detailed.

2.1 DIBR II Method

Introduced in 2023, the DIBR II method for determining weight coefficients of criteria is expounded in the study [8]. This method was devised to address the limitations observed in prior methodologies for calculating criteria weight coefficients. To date, its implementation has been documented in two distinct studies. In their research, Božanić and Pamučar [8] deployed this method in the domains of car procurement and the evaluation of social media efficacy. Subsequently, Božanić et al. [57] harnessed the method to determine weight coefficients of criteria, specifically while categorising methods and techniques within Lean organisation systems management.

A concise mathematical representation of the DIBR II method is presented below [8].

Step 1. Identification of criteria $K=\left\{ {{K}_{1}},{{K}_{2}},...,{{K}_{n}} \right\}$.

Step 2. Defining the rank of criteria based on importance ${{K}_{1}}>{{K}_{2}}>...>{{K}_{n}}$.

Step 3. Defining the relationship between the criteria.

$\omega_1: \omega_2=v_{1,2}: 1 \mapsto \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_2}=v_{1,2}$
(1)
$\omega_2: \omega_3=v_{2,3}: 1 \mapsto \frac{\omega_2}{\omega_3}=v_{2,3}$
(2)

...

$\omega_{n-1}: \omega_n=v_{n-1, \mathrm{n}}: 1 \longmapsto \frac{\omega_{n-1}}{\omega_n}=v_{n-1, \mathrm{n}}$
(3)
$\omega_1: \omega_n=v_{1, \mathrm{n}}: 1 \mapsto \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_n}=v_{1, \mathrm{n}}$
(4)

Step 4. Defining the relationship between the most important and other criteria.

$\omega_2=\frac{\omega_1}{v_{1,2}}$
(5)
$\omega_3=\frac{\omega_2}{v_{2,3}}=\frac{\omega_1}{v_{1,2} \cdot v_{2,3}}$
(6)

...

$\omega_n=\frac{\omega_1}{v_{1,2} \cdot v_{2,3} \ldots v_{n-1, \mathrm{n}}}$
(7)

Step 5. Determination of the weight coefficient of the most important criterion.

$\omega_1=\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{v_{1,2}}+\frac{1}{v_{1,2} \cdot v_{2,3}}+\cdots+\frac{1}{v_{1,2} \cdot v_{2,3} \cdots \cdot v_{\mathrm{n}-1, \mathrm{n}}}}$
(8)

Step 6. Determination of the weight coefficients of the remaining criteria.

Step 7. Evaluation of the quality of defined relationships.

In order to determine the quality of the defined relationships, it is necessary that the deviation ${{D}_{n}}$ of the criteria ${{K}_{n}}$ is in the range $0\le {{D}_{n}}\le 0.1$, where:

$D_n=\left|1-\frac{\omega_n}{\omega_n^k}\right|$
(9)
$\omega_n^k=\frac{\omega_1}{v_{1, n}}$
(10)

and where the values should be approximately equal, that is, a deviation of up to 10% is allowed.

2.2 FF MAIRCA Method

Within the context of this investigation, enhancements to the MAIRCA method [18] were made, incorporating FRFSs. Detailed explications of these sets can be found in studies [58], [59], [60]. The mathematical architecture of the FF MAIRCA method, as illustrated in studies [18], [59], is delineated as follows:

Step 1. A linguistic scale was defined for the evaluation of alternatives, grounded on FRFSs.

Step 2. Every alternative $A=\left\{ {{A}_{1}},{{A}_{2}},...,{{A}_{i}} \right\}$ was evaluated by each expert $E=\left\{ {{E}_{1}},{{E}_{2}},...,{{E}_{k}} \right\}$ according to all criteria $C=\left\{ {{C}_{1}},{{C}_{2}},...,{{C}_{j}} \right\}$ using the established linguistic scale. Subsequently, the initial decision matrix $\otimes {{E}_{ijk}}=\left\{ {{\varphi }_{{{E}_{ijk}}}},{{\gamma }_{{{E}_{ijk}}}} \right\}$ was derived for each expert, wherein ${{\varphi }_{{{E}_{ijk}}}}$ represents the degree of membership,${{\gamma }_{{{E}_{ijk}}}}$ represents the degree of non-membership of FF number $\otimes {{E}_{ijk}}$, and $0\le {{\left( {{\varphi }_{(x)}} \right)}^{3}}+{{\left( {{\gamma }_{(x)}} \right)}^{3}}\le 1$.

Step 3. Expert opinions were aggregated and the initial decision matrix was attained, accomplished through the application of Eq. (11) [59].

$\otimes {{X}_{ij}}=FFWA(\otimes {{E}_{ij1}},\otimes {{E}_{ij2}},...,\otimes {{E}_{ijp}})=\left( \frac{1}{p}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{p}{{{\varphi }_{{{E}_{ijk}}}}},\frac{1}{p}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{p}{{{\gamma }_{{{E}_{ijk}}}}} \right)$
(11)

where, $p$ represents the number of experts.

Step 4. The initial decision matrix $\otimes {{N}_{ij}}$ was normalized, achieved using Eq. (12) [59].

$\otimes {{N}_{ij}}=\left\{ \begin{align} & \otimes {{X}_{ij}},\,\,j=Benefit \\ & Com\left( \otimes {{X}_{ij}} \right),\,j=Cost \\ \end{align} \right.$
(12)

Step 5. The probability of opting for specific alternatives $P_{A_i}$ was discerned through Eq. (13) [18].

$P_{A_i}=\frac{1}{i}$
(13)

where, $i$ represents the total number of alternatives.

Step 6. The matrix of theoretical weights $\otimes {{T}_{pj}}$ was determined Eq. (14).

$\otimes {{T}_{pj}}=\left( \otimes {{t}_{p1}},\otimes {{t}_{p2}},...,\otimes {{t}_{pj}} \right),\,where\,\otimes {{t}_{pj}}={{P}_{{{A}_{i}}}}.\,{{\omega }_{j}}$
(14)

Step 7. The matrix of real weights $\otimes {{T}_{rij}}$ was determined Eq. (15).

$\begin{bmatrix} C_{1} & C_{2} & \cdots & C_{j} \end{bmatrix} \otimes T_{rij} = \begin{bmatrix} A_{1} \\ A_{2} \\ \vdots \\ A_{i} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \otimes t_{r11} & \otimes t_{r12} & \cdots & \otimes t_{r1j} \\ \otimes t_{r21} & \otimes t_{r22} & \cdots & \otimes t_{r2j} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \otimes t_{ri1} & \otimes t_{ri2} & \cdots & \otimes t_{rij} \end{bmatrix}$
(15)

where, $\otimes t_{rij} = \omega_{j} \cdot \otimes N_{ij}$.

Step 8. A gap matrix $\otimes {{G}_{ij}}$ was computed, contrasting theoretical and real weights, based on Eq. (16).

$\otimes G_{i j}=\otimes T_{p j}-\otimes T_{r i j}$
(16)

Step 9. The expected solution $\otimes {{Q}_{i}}$ was extrapolated via Eq. (17).

$\otimes {{Q}_{i}}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{p}{\otimes {{G}_{ij}}}$
(17)

Step 10. Alternatives were sorted in accordance with the positive score function ${{\psi }^{p}}\left( \otimes {{Q}_{i}} \right)$ Eq. (17) [59] of the expected solution. It is paramount to note that the least score function value designates the top-rated alternative, and the converse holds true.

$\psi^p\left(\otimes Q_i\right)=1+\psi\left(\otimes Q_i\right) \text { where } \psi\left(\otimes Q_i\right)=\left(\varphi_{Q_i}\right)^3-\left(\varphi_{Q_i}\right)^3$
(18)

Step 11. The dominance index for the foremost-ranked alternative ${{I}_{D,\,1-i}}$ was discerned utilizing Eq. (19) and the dominance threshold ${{T}_{D}}$ through Eq. (20).

$I_{D, 1-i}=\frac{Q_i-Q_{f r}}{Q_{l r}}$
(19)

where, ${{Q}_{fr}}$ represents the first-ranked alternative, ${{Q}_{lr}}$ represents the last-ranked alternative and ${{Q}_{i}}$ represents the alternative being considered.

$T_D=\frac{i-1}{i^2}$
(20)

where, $i$ represents the total number of alternatives.

For the solution to be considered valid, the relationship must satisfy ${{I}_{D,\,1-i}}\ge {{T}_{D}}$. If not met, the alternative's rank must be amended. Such an alternative will bear a mark (1*) adjacent to its rank, indicating that while it is not the foremost choice, it remains a potential optimal solution. This implies that decision-makers might still consider it as a viable resolution to the MCDM problem.

2.3 The Normalized Weighted Bonferroni Mean (NWBM) Operator [61]

This operator was adopted in the study to aggregate the opinions of seven experts when determining the weight coefficients of criteria using the DIBR II method Eq. (21).

$N W B M^{\mathrm{p}, \mathrm{q}}\left(\mathrm{y}_1, y_2, \ldots, y_n\right)=\left(\sum_{i, j=1}^n \frac{\omega_i \omega_j}{1-\omega_i} y_i^p y_j^q\right)^{\frac{1}{p+q}}$
(21)

where, $y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_n$ represent a set of positive numbers, $p, q \geq 0$ are stabilization parameters of the function, and $\omega_{i j}$ denote weight coefficients of experts' competencies.

3. Results

The first step of the proposed methodology entailed criteria identification. Through a comprehensive analysis of extant literature and consultations with seven field experts $E=\left\{E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_7\right\}$, five distinct criteria $C=\left\{C_1, \mathrm{C}_2, \mathrm{C}_3, \mathrm{C}_4\right\}$ were established, as detailed in Table 2.

Table 2. Criteria for choosing a pontoon bridge set
The Name of the CriteriaDescription of CriteriaType of Criteria
${K}_1$ - The priceIt represents the cost price of the pontoon bridge set in dollars.Cost
${K}_2$ - Carrying capacity of a bridge or one pontoon in a scaffoldThe basic feature of every pontoon bridge I is the load capacity in tons. Depending on the carrying capacity, technical combat means that can overcome the obstacle are defined.Benefit
${K}_3$ - ThroughputIt represents the number of military equipment that can cross a pontoon bridge, the largest possible length of one set, in a unit of time.Benefit
${K}_4-$ The possibility of assembling scaffoldingIndicates the number and size of scaffolds that can be assembled from one set of pontoon bridges.Benefit
${K}_5-$ Complexity of construction and devices on pontoonsIt represents the complexity of the construction of the pontoon bridge set, from the aspect of influence on the handling of the devices on the pontoons. The more complex the assets, the more complicated the handling.Cost

Subsequent to the criteria delineation, the DIBR II method was employed to define these criteria further. Seven experts from the domain determined the significance of each criterion, yielding respective weighting coefficients $\omega _{k}^{E}=\left( 0.155,\,0.135,\,0.140,\,0.130,\,0.145,\,0.135,\,0.160 \right)$. Eqs. (1)-(10) were employed to compute the weight coefficients of the criteria for every expert, as displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. The weight coefficients of the criteria defined by experts

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

E1

0.256035

0.213363

0.193966

0.176333

0.160303

E2

0.239677

0.208414

0.19849

0.189038

0.164381

E3

0.249726

0.208105

0.198195

0.180177

0.163797

E4

0.256035

0.213363

0.193966

0.176333

0.160303

E5

0.244059

0.212225

0.192932

0.183744

0.16704

E6

0.253182

0.210985

0.200938

0.182671

0.152226

E7

0.249631

0.215199

0.195636

0.177851

0.161683

Opinions from experts were aggregated through the NWBM aggregator, specifically using Eq. (21). This aggregation process produced the final values of the weight coefficients of the criteria shaping the subject choice, as elucidated in Table 4.

Table 4. The final values of the weight coefficients of the criteria for the selection of the pontoon bridge set

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

${{\omega }_{j}}$

0.256035

0.213363

0.193966

0.176333

0.160303

Following the ascertainment of the weight coefficients of criteria, alternatives were identified. These alternatives were manifested as four distinct pontoon bridge sets available in the market, each possessing unique attributes $A=\left\{ {{A}_{1}},{{A}_{2}},{{A}_{3}},{{A}_{4}} \right\}$.

Step 1. Respecting the steps of the proposed FF MAIRCA methodology, Table 5 shows the linguistic scale employed by experts to evaluate each alternative against all criteria.

Table 5. FF linguistic scale

Scale

FFN

Apsolutly satisfies (AS)

(0.9, 0.1)

Satisfies (S)

(0.75, 0.25)

Partially satisfying (PS)

(0.65, 0.35)

Partially unsatisfactory (PU)

(0.35, 0.65)

Not satisfy (NS)

(0.25, 0.75)

Apsolutly not satisfy (ANS)

(0.1, 0.9)

Step 2. Seven experts evaluated all alternatives using a linguistic scale (Table 5), and their decision matrices are given in Table 6.

Table 6. Decision matrix of experts ($E_k$)

E1

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

E2

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

E3

K1

K2

K3

K4

A1

AS

S

S

AS

PS

A1

AS

AS

S

AS

S

A1

S

S

S

S

A2

S

AS

AS

PS

S

A2

S

AS

AS

PS

AS

A2

AS

AS

AS

PS

A3

S

PS

PU

S

PU

A3

S

PS

AS

S

PU

A3

S

PU

PU

S

A4

PU

S

S

PU

AS

A4

PU

S

S

PU

AS

A4

PU

AS

S

AS

E4

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

E5

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

E6

K1

K2

K3

K4

A1

AS

S

S

AS

PS

A1

AS

S

S

AS

AS

A1

AS

S

S

AS

A2

S

AS

S

S

S

A2

S

AS

AS

PS

S

A2

AS

AS

AS

PS

A3

S

PS

PU

S

PU

A3

S

AS

AS

S

PU

A3

S

PS

PU

S

A4

PU

S

S

S

AS

A4

PU

S

S

AS

AS

A4

PU

S

S

PU

E7

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

A1

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

A2

S

AS

AS

S

AS

A3

AS

PS

PU

S

PU

A4

PS

S

S

PU

AS

Step 3. By means of Eq. (11), the aggregation of expert opinions was carried out, which leads to the initial decision-making matrix (Table 7).

Table 7. Initial decision matrix

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

A1

0.8786

0.1214

0.7929

0.2071

0.7714

0.2286

0.8786

0.1214

0.7500

0.2643

A2

0.7929

0.2071

0.9000

0.1000

0.8786

0.1214

0.6786

0.3214

0.7929

0.2071

A3

0.7714

0.2286

0.6857

0.3286

0.5071

0.4929

0.7500

0.2500

0.3500

0.6500

A4

0.3929

0.6071

0.7714

0.2286

0.7500

0.2500

0.5643

0.4357

0.9000

0.1000

Step 4. By applying Eq. (12), the initial decision matrix was normalized, and the normalized values are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Normalized matrix

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

A1

0.1214

0.8786

0.7929

0.2071

0.7714

0.2286

0.8786

0.1214

0.2643

0.7500

A2

0.2071

0.7929

0.9000

0.1000

0.8786

0.1214

0.6786

0.3214

0.2071

0.7929

A3

0.2286

0.7714

0.6857

0.3286

0.5071

0.4929

0.7500

0.2500

0.6500

0.3500

A4

0.6071

0.3929

0.7714

0.2286

0.7500

0.2500

0.5643

0.4357

0.1000

0.9000

Step 5. The probability of choosing certain alternatives was determined using Eq. (13) and the value 0.25 was obtained.

Step 6. Applying Eq. (14) leads to the matrix of theoretical weights (Table 9).

Table 9. Matrix of theoretical weights

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

Tp

0.0625

0.0625

0.0530

0.0530

0.0490

0.0490

0.0453

0.0453

0.0403

0.0403

Step 7. The matrix of real weights was obtained by applying Eq. (15) and presented in Table 10.

Table 10. The matrix of real weights

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

A1

0.0076

0.0549

0.0420

0.0110

0.0378

0.0112

0.0398

0.0055

0.0106

0.0302

A2

0.0129

0.0496

0.0477

0.0053

0.0431

0.0060

0.0307

0.0145

0.0083

0.0319

A3

0.0143

0.0482

0.0363

0.0174

0.0249

0.0242

0.0339

0.0113

0.0262

0.0141

A4

0.0379

0.0246

0.0409

0.0121

0.0368

0.0123

0.0255

0.0197

0.0040

0.0362

Step 8. The matrix of the gap between theoretical and real weights obtained by applying Eq. (16) is presented in Table 11.

Table 11. The matrix of gap between theoretical and real weights

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

A1

0.0549

0.0076

0.0110

0.0420

0.0112

0.0378

0.0055

0.0398

0.0296

0.0101

A2

0.0496

0.0129

0.0053

0.0477

0.0060

0.0431

0.0145

0.0307

0.0319

0.0083

A3

0.0482

0.0143

0.0167

0.0356

0.0242

0.0249

0.0113

0.0339

0.0141

0.0262

A4

0.0246

0.0379

0.0121

0.0409

0.0123

0.0368

0.0197

0.0255

0.0362

0.0040

Step 9. The expected solutions are calculated using Eq. (17), and the obtained values are shown in Table 12.

Table 12. The expected solutions

$\otimes {{Q}_{i}}$

A1

0.1122

0.1372

A2

0.1073

0.1427

A3

0.1144

0.1348

A4

0.1049

0.1451

Step 10. Applying Eq. (18) leads to the score function based on which the ranking is made (Table 13).

Table 13. Score function and initial ranking of alternatives

${{\psi }^{p}}\left( \otimes {{Q}_{i}} \right)$

Rank

A1

0.9988

3

A2

0.9983

2

A3

0.9990

4

A4

0.9981

1

Step 11. By applying Eqs. (19) and (20), the dominance index for top-ranked alternative $I_{D, 1-i}$ and the threshold of dominance $T_D$ are determined ( Table 14).

Table 14. The values of the dominance index and the threshold of dominance

${{I}_{D,\, 1-i}}$

${{T}_{D}}$

A1

0.0007

0.1875

A2

0.0002

A3

0.0010

A4

0.0000

Drawing insights from Table 14, it was concluded that the preliminary ranking coincided with the final ranking of alternatives. Specifically, alternative $A_4$ emerged as the top-ranked choice, while alternative $A_3$ was positioned as the least preferred option.

4. Sensitivity and Comparative Analysis

A sensitivity analysis concerning the introduced methodology was undertaken, focusing primarily on variations in the weight coefficients of the criteria, as delineated in studies [22], [24], [26], [28]. Within this analytical framework, 14 distinct scenarios of weight change were articulated, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Scenarios of changing the weight coefficients of the criteria
Note: This figure was prepared by the authors.

By applying the scenarios shown in Figure 2, the following ranks of alternatives were obtained (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. The ranks of the alternatives obtained by applying the defined scenarios
Note: This figure was prepared by the authors.

Drawn from the changes in the rankings of the alternatives, as presented in Figure 4, it was inferred that the proposed FF MAIRCA method exhibited pronounced sensitivity to shifts in the weight coefficients of the criteria. Hence, when these coefficients are defined by experts, heightened vigilance is necessitated to discern the interrelationships among the criteria influencing the selection of the optimal alternative.

A comparative analysis ensued, juxtaposing the outcomes derived from the proposed methodology with those presented in studies [58], [60]. Employing the initial decision matrix (Table 7) and invoking mathematical constructs such as FFWPA (Fermatean Fuzzy weighted power average), FFWPG (Fermatean Fuzzy weighted power geometric), FFWA (Fermatean Fuzzy weighted average), and FFWG (Fermatean Fuzzy weighted geometric) operators, rankings of alternatives were formulated, as enumerated in Table 15.

Table 15. Alternative ranks obtained using Fermatean Fuzzy weighted operators

FFWA

FFWG

FFWPA

FFWPG

A1

3

4

3

3

A2

2

1

1

1

A3

4

3

4

4

A4

1

2

2

2

The rankings acquired using the FF MAIRCA method and those presented in Table 15 were subsequently analyzed through the computation of the Spearman’s correlation coefficient, as discussed in studies [26], [62] (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. The values of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient
Note: This figure was prepared by the authors.

The data visualized in Figure 4 underscored the robustness of the proposed model. Specifically, the correlation coefficients displayed a proclivity towards a positive ideal correlation, suggesting the model's stability and its capacity to yield accurate results.

5. Conclusions

Through the application of the intricate MCDM model, encompassing DIBR II - NWBM - FF MAIRCA, a selection process for pontoon bridge sets was undertaken. The findings and insights derived from this study shed light on the nuances of decision-making across varied contexts. A pivotal aspect of the research involved leveraging the DIBR II method to ascertain weight coefficients of the criteria. This element was instrumental in delineating priorities among diverse criteria, grounded in the aggregated perspectives of seven experts via the NWBM operator. Subsequently, the weight coefficients were integrated into the FF MAIRCA method, showcasing an innovative enhancement of the MAIRCA approach utilizing FF sets. Serving as the foundation for alternative ranking, this method also facilitated the identification of the optimal solution for the MCDM quandary. The findings pinpointed alternative $A_4$ as the prime solution for the MCDM challenge associated with pontoon bridge set selection.

Further scrutiny was directed towards the sensitivity of the model relative to shifts in the weight coefficients of the criteria. It was inferred that pronounced sensitivity was exhibited, underscoring the imperative of meticulous weight definition by experts to maintain model precision in practical scenarios. For validation, a comparative analysis juxtaposed the results with the FFW operator's outcomes. Conclusions drawn verified the stability and accuracy of the proposed methodology, reinforcing its efficacy and applicability within the pontoon bridge set selection milieu.

This study furnishes a robust framework tailored for decisions concerning water obstacle traversal tools, with an emphasis on pontoon bridge sets. However, it is salient to highlight the necessity for rigorous criteria weight delineation to bolster the model's stability and accuracy. The devised methodology stands as a potential asset for decision-makers overcoming water obstacle challenges in military settings, aiming to bolster the selection efficacy of military resources.

The primary constraint of this investigation pivots on the quantity of criteria steering the choices. Future research trajectories allude to this limitation, advocating a granular exploration of criteria, coupled with the integration of theories adept at handling vagueness and uncertainties inherent in conventional MCDM methodologies.

Data Availability

The data used to support the research findings are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
1.
V. Pifat, River Crossing / Prelaz Preko Reka. Serbia, Belgrade: Military Publishing House, 1980. [Google Scholar]
2.
D. V. Shunyakov, O. N. Bondarev, D. N. Bagin, and K. S. Fokin, Crossings: Study Guide. Russia, Yekaterinburg: Ural University Press, 2017. [Google Scholar]
3.
T. L. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process. USA, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. [Google Scholar]
4.
D. Pamučar, Ž. Stević, and S. Sremac, “A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM),” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 393, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5.
M. Žižović and D. Pamučar, “New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model,” Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6.
D. Pamucar, M. Deveci, I. Gokasar, M. Işık, and M. Zizovic, “Circular economy concepts in urban mobility alternatives using integrated DIBR method and fuzzy Dombi CoCoSo model,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 323, p. 129096, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
D. Pamučar, M. Žižović, S. Biswas, and D. Božanić, “A new logarithm methodology of additive weights (LMAW) for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: Application in logistics,” Facta Univ. Ser.: Mech. Eng., vol. 19, no. 3, p. 361, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8.
D. Božanić and D. Pamučar, Overview of the Method Defining Interrelationships Between Ranked Criteria II and Its Application in Multi-criteria Decision-Making. Singapore: Springer, 2023. [Google Scholar]
9.
C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1981. [Google Scholar]
10.
J. P. Brans, P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal, “How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228–238, 1986. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11.
E. Zavadskas and A. Kaklauskas, Determination of an Efficient Contractor by Using the New Method of Multicriteria Assessment. UK, London: Routledge, 1996. [Google Scholar]
12.
S. Opricovic, Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems / Višekriterijumska optimizacija u gradjevinarstvu. Serbia, Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering, 1998. [Google Scholar]
13.
W. Brauers and E. Zavadskas, “The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy,” Control Cybern., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445–469, 2006. [Google Scholar]
14.
E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, “A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 159–172, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15.
M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, and Z. Turskis, “Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS),” Informatica, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 435–451, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16.
M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene, “A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making,” Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 25–44, 2016. [Google Scholar]
17.
E. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, J. Šaparauskas, and Z. Turskis, “MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: Verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions,” Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 5–20, 2013. [Google Scholar]
18.
D. Pamučar, Lj. Vasin, and V. Lukovac, “Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid DEMATEL-MARICA model,” in Proceedings of the XVI Internacional Scientific-Expert Conference of Railways RAILCON, Niš, Serbia, pp. 89–92. [Google Scholar]
19.
D. Pamučar and G. Ćirović, “The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC),” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 3016–3028, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20.
Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee, “Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS),” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 140, p. 106231, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
D. I. Božanić and D. S. Pamučar, “Evaluating locations for river crossing using fuzzy logic,” Vojnotehnicki glasnik, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 129–145, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
D. Tešić, D. Božanić, A. Puška, A. Milić, and D. Marinković, “Development of the MCDM fuzzy LMAW-grey MARCOS model for selection of a dump truck,” Rep. Mech. Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
D. Pamucar, D. Bozanic, and A. Milic, “Selection of a course of action by obstacle employment group based on a fuzzy logic system,” Yugosl. J. Oper. Res., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 75–90, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
D. Tešić, M. Radovanović, D. Božanić, D. Pamucar, A. Milić, and A. Puška, “Modification of the DIBR and MABAC methods by applying rough numbers and its application in making decisions,” Information, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 353, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
D. Pamučar, D. Božanić, B. Djorović, and A. Milić, “Modelling of the fuzzy logical system for offering support in making decisions within the engineering units of the Serbian Army,” Int. J. Phys. Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 592–609, 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
D. Tešić, D. Božanić, D. Stojković, A. Puška, and I. Stojanović, “DIBR–DOMBI–FUZZY MAIRCA model for strategy selection in the system of defense,” Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc., vol. 2023, pp. 1–14, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
M. Radovanović, A. Ranđelović, and Ž. Jokić, “Application of hybrid model fuzzy AHP - VIKOR in selection of the most efficient procedure for rectification of the optical sight of the long-range rifle,” Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 131–148, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
28.
D. Tešić Z., D. Božanić I., D. Pamučar S., and J. Din, “DIBR - Fuzzy MARCOS model for selecting a location for a heavy mechanized bridge,” Vojnotehnicki glasnik, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 314–339, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
29.
M. Arif, B. Wirjodirdjo, I. M. J. Astika, and A. Rivai, “Analysis of selection of arsenal warehouse locations to support Kri operations in the Koarmada Ii area analysis of arsenal storage location selection to support the operations of Indonesian Navy Warship (Kri) in the 2nd Naval Fleet Territory,” Journal ASRO, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 40, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
30.
D. Božanić, A. Milić, D. Tešić, W. Sałabun, and D. Pamučar, “D NUMBERS – FUCOM – FUZZY RAFSI model for selecting the group of construction machines for enabling mobility,” Facta Univ. Ser.: Mech. Eng., vol. 19, no. 3, p. 447, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
31.
Y. P. Xu, H. Li, and M. Lyu, “Research on the location problem of unmanned border and coastal air defense anti-aircraft gun,” in 2021 IEEE 5th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
32.
D. Pamučar, D. Božanić, and B. Ðorović, Fuzzy Logic in Decision Making Process in the Armed Forces of Serbia. Germany, Saarbrücken: LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2011. [Google Scholar]
33.
Ž. Stević, D. K. Das, and M. Kopić, “A novel multiphase model for traffic safety evaluation: A case study of South Africa,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2021, pp. 1–22, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
34.
A. Puška, Ž. Stević, and I. Stojanović, “Selection of sustainable suppliers using the Fuzzy MARCOS method,” Curr. Chin. Sci., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 218–229, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
35.
Ž. Stević, E. Durmić, M. Gajić, D. Pamučar, and A. Puška, “A novel Multi-Criteria Decision-Making model: Interval rough SAW method for sustainable supplier selection,” Information, vol. 10, no. 10, p. 292, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
36.
S. Bošković, L. Švadlenka, M. Dobrodolac, S. Jovčić, and M. Zanne, “An Extended AROMAN Method for Cargo Bike Delivery Concept Selection,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
37.
S. J. Ghoushchi, M. N. A. Ab Rahman, M. Soltanzadeh, M. Z. Rafique, H. Hernadewita, F. Y. Marangalo, and A. R. Ismail, “Assessing sustainable passenger transportation systems to address climate change based on MCDM methods in an uncertain environment,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 3558, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
38.
M. B. Bouraima, N. A. Tengecha, Ž. Stević, V. Simić, and Y. J. Qiu, “An integrated fuzzy MCDM model for prioritizing strategies for successful implementation and operation of the bus rapid transit system,” Ann. Oper. Res., pp. 0254–5330, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
39.
J. G. Liu, B. M. Gu, and J. H. Chen, “Enablers for maritime supply chain resilience during pandemic: An integrated MCDM approach,” Transp. Res. Part A: Pol. Pract., vol. 175, p. 103777, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
40.
K. Kabirifar, M. Ashour, M. Yazdani, A. Mahdiyar, and M. Malekjafarian, “Cybernetic-parsimonious MCDM modeling with application to the adoption of Circular Economy in waste management,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 139, p. 110186, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
41.
A. Puška, A. Štilić, and I. Stojanović, “Approach for multi-criteria ranking of Balkan countries based on the index of economic freedom,” J. Decis. Anal. Intell. Comput., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
42.
F. Ecer and S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, “Evaluating economic freedom via a multi-criteria MEREC-DNMA model-based composite system: Case of OPEC countries,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1158–1181, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
43.
I. Badi, Ž. Stević, and M. B. Bouraima, “Overcoming obstacles to renewable energy development in Libya: An MCDM approach towards effective strategy formulation,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
44.
I. Badi and A. Abdulshahed, “Sustainability performance measurement for Libyan Iron and Steel Company using Rough AHP,” J. Decis. Anal. Intell. Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–34, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
45.
Ö. F. Görçün, D. Pamucar, and S. Biswas, “The blockchain technology selection in the logistics industry using a novel MCDM framework based on Fermatean fuzzy sets and Dombi aggregation,” Inf. Sci., vol. 635, pp. 345–374, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
46.
A. Gamal and M. Mohamed, “A hybrid MCDM approach for industrial robots selection for the automotive industry,” Neutrosoph. Syst. Appl., vol. 4, pp. 1–11, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
47.
D. Pamučar, B. Đorović, D. Božanić, and G. Ćirović, “Modification of the dynamic scale of marks in analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network approach (ANP) through application of fuzzy approach,” Sci. Res. Essays, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 24–37, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
48.
A. H. Alamoodi, B. B. Zaidan, O. S. Albahri, S. Garfan, I. Y. Y. Ahmaro, R. T. Mohammed, A. A. Zaidan, A. R. Ismail, A. S. Albahri, F. Momani, M. S. Al-Samarraay, A. N. Jasim, and R.Q.Malik, “Systematic review of MCDM approach applied to the medical case studies of COVID-19: trends, bibliographic analysis, challenges, motivations, recommendations, and future directions,” Complex Intell. Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 4705–4731, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
49.
J. F. Ding and L. M. Hsu, “Electrocardiogram monitor supplier selection based on fuzzy MCDM evaluation method,” Int. J. Innovative Comput. Inf. Control, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 465–486, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
50.
R. Sharma, G. K. Mahanti, G. Panda, A. Rath, S. Dash, S. Mallik, and R. feng Hu, “A framework for detecting thyroid cancer from ultrasound and histopathological images using deep learning, meta-heuristics, and MCDM algorithms,” J. Imaging, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 173, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
51.
J. l. Jin and H. Garg, “Intuitionistic fuzzy three-way ranking-based TOPSIS approach with a novel entropy measure and its application to medical treatment selection,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 180, p. 103459, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
52.
M. Mokarram, H. R. Pourghasemi, and T. M. Pham, “Identification of suitable location to cultivate grape based on disease infestation using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and remote sensing,” Ecol. Inform., vol. 76, p. 102142, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
53.
M. Ramchandran, S. Chinnasamy, and M. Selvam, “Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, groundwater quality status in relation to MCDM system pollution,” J. Mater. Charact., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 40–47, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
54.
W. Xiang, K. L. Li, F. Dong, Y. Zhang, Q. Zeng, L. Jiang, D. W. Zhang, Y. L. Huang, L. Xiao, Z. Zhang, and C. F. Zhang, “Development of a multicriteria decision-making model for evaluating hybrid offspring in the sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas L.) breeding process,” Breed. Sci., vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 246–260, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
55.
M. Rahimi, H. V. Thanh, I. Ebrahimzade, M. H. Abbaspour-Fard, and A. Rohani, “A multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach to determine the synthesizing routes of biomass-based carbon electrode material in supercapacitors,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 397, p. 136606, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
56.
Sonia, Sunita, R. K. Verma, T. Ghosh, and R. K. Gaur, “Agricultural land suitability categorization and evaluation using GIS Assisted AHP in the Arid Western Plain Zone of Rajasthan, India,” Indian J. Agric. Res., vol. 57, no. 4, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
57.
D. Božanić, I. Epler, A. Puška, S. Biswas, D. Marinković, and S. Koprivica, “Application of the DIBR II – rough MABAC decision-making model for ranking methods and techniques of lean organization systems management in the process of technical maintenance,” Facta Univ. Ser.: Mech. Eng., 2023. [Google Scholar]
58.
T. Senapati and R. R. Yager, “Fermatean fuzzy sets,” J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 663–674, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
59.
M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, M. Hashemi-Tabatabaei, E. K. Zavadskas, and A. Kaklauskas, “A new decision-making approach based on Fermatean fuzzy sets and WASPAS for green construction supplier evaluation,” Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 12, p. 2202, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
60.
T. Senapati and R. R. Yager, “Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 85, pp. 112–121, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
61.
J. M. Zhou, T. Baležentis, and D. Streimikiene, “Normalized weighted Bonferroni Harmonic Mean-Based intuitionistic fuzzy operators and their application to the sustainable selection of search and rescue robots,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 218, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
62.
B. Srđević, Z. Srđević, and K. Suvočarev, “Analitički Hijerarhijski Proces: Individualna i grupna konzistentnost donosilaca odluka,” Vodoprivreda, vol. 41, no. 1–3, pp. 13–21, 2009. [Google Scholar]

Cite this:
APA Style
IEEE Style
BibTex Style
MLA Style
Chicago Style
GB-T-7714-2015
Tešić, D., Božanić, D., & Milić, A. (2023). A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Pontoon Bridge Selection: An Application of the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA Approach. J. Eng. Manag. Syst. Eng., 2(4), 212-223. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020403
D. Tešić, D. Božanić, and A. Milić, "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Pontoon Bridge Selection: An Application of the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA Approach," J. Eng. Manag. Syst. Eng., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 212-223, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020403
@research-article{Tešić2023AMD,
title={A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Pontoon Bridge Selection: An Application of the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA Approach},
author={DušKo TešIć and Darko BožAnić and Aleksandar Milić},
journal={Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering},
year={2023},
page={212-223},
doi={https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020403}
}
DušKo TešIć, et al. "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Pontoon Bridge Selection: An Application of the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA Approach." Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, v 2, pp 212-223. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020403
DušKo TešIć, Darko BožAnić and Aleksandar Milić. "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Pontoon Bridge Selection: An Application of the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA Approach." Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 2, (2023): 212-223. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020403
TEŠIĆ D, BOŽANIĆ D, MILIĆ A. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Pontoon Bridge Selection: An Application of the DIBR II-NWBM-FF MAIRCA Approach[J]. Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 2023, 2(4): 212-223. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020403
cc
©2023 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.