2010 Seventh International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery 2010
DOI: 10.1109/fskd.2010.5569102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fuzzy optimum model of semi-structural decision for bridge lectotype

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Wang et al [66] and Jakiet et al [67] proposed a Fuzzy AHP; Gervasio and Simoes Da Silva [35] employed a hybrid method between AHP and PROMETHEE; and Farkas [36] used AHP supported by seven different experts having varying priorities. Alternatively, other authors used different methods.…”
Section: Planning and Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Wang et al [66] and Jakiet et al [67] proposed a Fuzzy AHP; Gervasio and Simoes Da Silva [35] employed a hybrid method between AHP and PROMETHEE; and Farkas [36] used AHP supported by seven different experts having varying priorities. Alternatively, other authors used different methods.…”
Section: Planning and Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other authors apply MCDM techniques for the sustainable assessment of different materials for the design of bridges (El-Mikawi & Mosallam, 1996;Navarro et al, 2018aNavarro et al, , 2018bNavarro et al, , 2018cNavarro et al, , 2020Enfedaque et al, 2018). A main source of decision-making problems has been found to be the selection of the bridge type (Itoh et al, 2000;Ugwu et al, 2006;Wang et al, 2010;Balali et al, 2014;Kripka et al, 2019;Farkas, 2011;Gu et al, 2011;Arya et al, 2015) or construction techniques (El-Diraby & O'Connor, 2001;Pan, 2008;Salem et al, 2018;Jia et al, 2018;Mousavi et al, 2014;Chen, 2018Chen, , 2020. Ardeshir et al (2014) apply fuzzy AHP for the selection of an adequate bridge construction site considering sustainable criteria.…”
Section: Overview Of the Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the abovementioned five stakeholders suggested by UNEP/SETAC (2009), social impacts on local communities are assessed by 39.5% of the studies, namely those evaluating impacts on cultural heritage, local employment generation, the externalities and the public acceptance of the bridge and its aesthetics. The stakeholder Society is taken into account by 14.3% of the studies, namely those considering impacts on the development of local economies (Ugwu et al, 2006;Aghdaie et al, 2012;Bansal et al, 2017;Cau & Hong, 2017;Navarro et al, 2018aNavarro et al, , 2018bNavarro et al, , 2018cSalem et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2018), on the social wellbeing and the inclusion of innovation (Wang et al, 2010;Ugwu et al, 2006) in the bridge design. The stakeholder Workers is assessed by 19.3% of the articles, which consider the health and safety related to working conditions as a main source of social impacts.…”
Section: Distribution Based On the Sustainability Dimension Assessedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So some nonlinear structural or black-box approaches, e.g. the Markovian analysis [3], rough set [4] and neural network [5] have been introduced. Among these nonlinear models, the back propagation neural network (BPNN) and the radius basis function-based neural network (RBFNN) are two models that gains wide applications.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%