IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i16p2567-d1459912.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhanced Structural Design of Prestressed Arched Trusses through Multi-Objective Optimization and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Andrés Ruiz-Vélez

    (Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 València, Spain)

  • José García

    (Escuela de Ingeniería de Construcciόn y Transporte, Pontificia Universidad Catόlica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2362804, Chile)

  • Gaioz Partskhaladze

    (Engineering and Construction Department, Faculty of Technologies, Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University, 35/32, Ninoshvili/Rustaveli Str., 6010 Batumi, Georgia)

  • Julián Alcalá

    (Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 València, Spain)

  • Víctor Yepes

    (Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 València, Spain)

Abstract

The structural design of prestressed arched trusses presents a complex challenge due to the need to balance multiple conflicting objectives such as structural performance, weight, and constructability. This complexity is further compounded by the interdependent nature of the structural elements, which necessitates a comprehensive optimization approach. Addressing this challenge is crucial for advancing construction practices and improving the efficiency and safety of structural designs. The integration of advanced optimization algorithms and decision-making techniques offers a promising avenue for enhancing the design process of prestressed arched trusses. This study proposes the use of three advanced multi-objective optimization algorithms: NSGA-III, CTAEA, and SMS-EMOA, to optimize the structural design of prestressed arched trusses. The performance of these algorithms was evaluated using generational distance and inverted generational distance metrics. Additionally, the non-dominated optimal designs generated by these algorithms were assessed and ranked using multiple multi-criteria decision-making techniques, including SAW, FUCA, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and VIKOR. This approach allowed for a robust comparison of the algorithms and provided insights into their effectiveness in balancing the different design objectives. The results of the study indicated that NSGA-III exhibited superior performance with a GD value of 0.215, reflecting a closer proximity of its solutions to the Pareto front, and an IGD value of 0.329, indicating a well-distributed set of solutions across the Pareto front. In comparison, CTAEA and SMS-EMOA showed higher GD values of 0.326 and 0.436, respectively, suggesting less convergence to the Pareto front. However, SMS-EMOA demonstrated a balanced performance in terms of constructability and structural weight, with an IGD value of 0.434. The statistical significance of these differences was confirmed by the Kruskal–Wallis test, with p -values of 2.50 × 10 − 15 for GD and 5.15 × 10 − 06 for IGD. These findings underscore the advantages and limitations of each algorithm, providing valuable insights for future applications in structural optimization.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrés Ruiz-Vélez & José García & Gaioz Partskhaladze & Julián Alcalá & Víctor Yepes, 2024. "Enhanced Structural Design of Prestressed Arched Trusses through Multi-Objective Optimization and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-30, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:16:p:2567-:d:1459912
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/16/2567/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/16/2567/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beume, Nicola & Naujoks, Boris & Emmerich, Michael, 2007. "SMS-EMOA: Multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1653-1669, September.
    2. Rivero-Iglesias, Jose M. & Puente, Javier & Fernandez, Isabel & León, Omar, 2023. "Integrated model for the assessment of power generation alternatives through analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy inference system. Case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 563-581.
    3. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    4. Nihan Kabadayi & Mohammad Dehghanimohammadabadi, 2022. "Multi-objective supplier selection process: a simulation–optimization framework integrated with MCDM," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(2), pages 1607-1629, December.
    5. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    2. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    3. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    4. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    5. Ishizaka, Alessio & Nemery, Philippe & Lidouh, Karim, 2013. "Location selection for the construction of a casino in the Greater London region: A triple multi-criteria approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 211-220.
    6. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    7. Witold Torbacki, 2021. "Achieving Sustainable Mobility in the Szczecin Metropolitan Area in the Post-COVID-19 Era: The DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    8. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2019. "A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1017-1027.
    9. Ateekh Ur Rehman & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Yusuf Siraj Usmani, 2019. "Strategic Outcome Using Fuzzy-AHP-Based Decision Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Yandong He & Xu Wang & Yun Lin & Fuli Zhou, 2016. "Optimal Partner Combination for Joint Distribution Alliance using Integrated Fuzzy EW-AHP and TOPSIS for Online Shopping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18, April.
    11. József Dombi & Tamás Jónás, 2024. "Learning the weights using attribute order information for multi-criteria decision making tasks," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(4), pages 2379-2409, December.
    12. Tingting Li & Dan Zhao & Guiyun Liu & Yuhong Wang, 2022. "How to Evaluate College Students’ Green Innovation Ability—A Method Combining BWM and Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Jarosław Wątróbski & Krzysztof Małecki & Kinga Kijewska & Stanisław Iwan & Artur Karczmarczyk & Russell G. Thompson, 2017. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-34, August.
    14. Zida Song & Quan Liu & Zhigen Hu, 2020. "Decision-Making Framework, Enhanced by Mutual Inspection for First-Stage Dam Construction Diversion Scheme Selection," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 563-577, January.
    15. Montlaur, Adeline & Delgado, Luis & Prats, Xavier, 2023. "Domain-driven multiple-criteria decision-making for flight crew decision support tool," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Yekani Motlagh, Elgar & Hajjarian, Marzieh & Hossein Zadeh, Omid & Alijanpour, Ahmad, 2020. "The difference of expert opinion on the forest-based ecotourism development in developed countries and Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Anjali Singh & Anjana Gupta & Aparna Mehra, 2021. "Best criteria selection based PROMETHEE II method," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 58(1), pages 160-180, March.
    18. Jingyuan Shi & Jiaqing Sun, 2023. "Prefabrication Implementation Potential Evaluation in Rural Housing Based on Entropy Weighted TOPSIS Model: A Case Study of Counties in Chongqing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Andrés Ruiz-Vélez & José García & Julián Alcalá & Víctor Yepes, 2024. "Enhancing Robustness in Precast Modular Frame Optimization: Integrating NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and RVEA for Sustainable Infrastructure," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-30, May.
    20. Vicent Penadés-Plà & Tatiana García-Segura & José V. Martí & Víctor Yepes, 2016. "A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-21, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:16:p:2567-:d:1459912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.