nedelja, 17 dec 2017

Baner
Baner
Baner
Baner
Original Scientific paper
UDC: 625.712.1:681.2.089   
DOI: 10.7251/afts.2017.0916.045B
COBISS.RS-ID 6439192
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF THE
BEST METHOD HIGHWAY ROUTE
 
 Bašić Zahid1, Džananović Amir1
1University of Tuzla, Faculty of Mining, Geology and Civil Engineering, Bosnia and Herzegovina, e-mail: Ova adresa el. pošte zaštićena je od spam napada, treba omogućiti JavaSkript da biste je videli
 

SUMMARY  Full text (pdf)

The main objective of this study was to review the methods used in the process of selecting the optimal route of the highway, the way in which these methods are used, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and comparing the particular case make the favored one of the offered methods. In addition to mutual comparison criteria optimization work are detailed methods and presents a concrete example, which can be very useful to researchers in this field.
               
Comparison of the already complex valuation methods with a large number of influential factors is a particular challenge to the author. It is extremely difficult to make a comparison method which the authors used a completely different mathematical approach. Some of the criteria optimization are incurred in order to concrete problems (air transport of passengers, the annual prediction of accidents, etc.) and as such are not primarily been designed for the selection of the optimal route of the highway.
 
After much thought and research criteria optimization, this paper applied the mathematical approach in comparison method, as follows: Spearman's and Pearson's correlation coefficient and Kendall's coefficient of correlation.

Key words: road, highway, multidisciplinary optimization, comparison, methods

 

LITERATURE

[1]
Hyde, K.. M., Maier, H. R., Colby, C. B. (2005). A distance-based uncertainty analysis approach  to multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource decision-making. Journal of environmental management, v.77(4).
[2]
Radojičić, M., Vesić, J. (2003). One approach to modeling and preference in Multi-criteria optimization, published in the Proceedings of: management in the industry.
[3]
Srđević, B., Srđević, Z., Zoranović, T. (2002). Promethee, topsis and CP in multicriteria decision making in agriculture. 
[4]
Belton, S. and Stewart, T.S., (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. An Integrated  Approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts.
[5]
Pavličić, D. (2002). Cconsistency of the method attribute analysis. Faculty of Economics.
[6]
Kablan, M.M., (2004). Decision support for energy conservation promotion: an analytic hierarchy process approach, Energy Policy 32,
[7]
Winston, W., Albright C. (2008). Practical management science. Revised Third Edition, London, Thomson South-Western
[8]
Saaty, T. L, (1990). How to make a decision. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research 48. 
[9]
Šošić, I. (2004). Applied Statistics,Zagreb. School book
[10]
Oprecović, S., Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods. Acomparative analysis of Vikor and Topsis. European Journal of Operational Research 156,
[11]
Srđević, B., Bajčetić, R. (2007). Multi-criteria analysis of alternatives for the reconstruction of regional water supply system method Promethee, Water Management 39.
[12]
Buchanan, J., Sheppard P., Vanderpooten, D. (1999). Project ranking using Electre III. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11 (4-5).
[13]
Mining, Geology and Civil Engineering, University of Tuzla, Tuzla, Lineal doo. Maribor, IRGO consulting doo, Maribor, Gradis Design Centre d.o.o. Traffic study for the highway Orašje (The Sava River) Tuzla (Šićki Brod), Maribor, 2009.
 
Copyright Tehnički institut Bijeljina, 2010.
Web dizajn : Stanko Zarić

uređuje: www.asteh.com