IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i2p899-d1323205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determination of the Occurrence of Negative Impacts during Lowering of Sinking Wells Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method

Author

Listed:
  • Ryszard Dachowski

    (Civil Engineering and Architecture Department, Kielce University of Technology, al. 1000-lecia PP 7, 25-314 Kielce, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Gałek-Bracha

    (Civil Engineering and Architecture Department, Kielce University of Technology, al. 1000-lecia PP 7, 25-314 Kielce, Poland)

Abstract

Sinking wells belong to underground facilities. Large-diameter sinking wells are often constructed as retention basins and reservoirs for wastewater treatment plants, which is determined by the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. The directive obliges Member States to implement the principles of sustainable development, promoting sustainable sewage collection and treatment systems. When designing and constructing facilities using sinking well technology, contact between the structure and the ground must be considered. During the lowering of a sinking well into the ground medium, a number of negative impacts may occur and affect the sinking process, including excessive ground settlement outside the well, damage or destruction of adjacent objects, tilt of the well casing from the vertical, and uncontrolled sinking of the well casing. The aim of this paper is to determine the occurrence of negative impacts during the lowering of sinking wells. Determining the incidence of negative impacts could help to avoid pre-failure and emergency situations relating to sinking wells. A fuzzy TOPSIS method was used to determine the above.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryszard Dachowski & Katarzyna Gałek-Bracha, 2024. "Determination of the Occurrence of Negative Impacts during Lowering of Sinking Wells Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:899-:d:1323205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/899/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/899/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    3. Eduardo Cejuela & Vicente Negro & Jose María Del Campo & Mario Martín-Antón & M. Dolores Esteban & Jose Santos López-Gutiérrez, 2018. "Recent History, Types, and Future of Modern Caisson Technology: The Way to More Sustainable Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-30, October.
    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. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Aleksandar Aleksić & Danijela Tadić, 2023. "Industrial and Management Applications of Type-2 Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Techniques Extended with Type-2 Fuzzy Sets from 2013 to 2022," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Olcer, A. I. & Odabasi, A. Y., 2005. "A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 93-114, October.
    4. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.
    5. Aliasghar Aliakbarzadeh & Akbar Alem Tabriz, 2014. "Performance Evaluation and Ranking the Branches of Bank using FAHP and TOPSIS Case study: Tose Asr Shomal Interest-free Loan Fund," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 4(12), pages 199-217, December.
    6. Khalid Aljohani & Russell G. Thompson, 2018. "A Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of the Most Suitable and Sustainable Delivery Fleet for Freight Consolidation Policies in the Inner-City Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.
    7. Yu-Jie Wang, 2023. "Extending Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Hierarchy Process under Interval-Valued Fuzzy Environment for Evaluating Port Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Kiracı, Kasım & Akan, Ercan, 2020. "Aircraft selection by applying AHP and TOPSIS in interval type-2 fuzzy sets," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    9. Shubham Gupta & Raghav Khanna & Pranay Kohli & Sarthak Agnihotri & Umang Soni & M. Asjad, 2023. "Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure using Fuzzy AHP – a case study in India," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 245-258, March.
    10. Ehsan Khanmohammadi & Maryam Azizi & HamidReza Talaie & Fatih Ecer & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2024. "A novel hybrid decision-making framework based on modified fuzzy analytic network process and fuzzy best–worst method," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1-32, December.
    11. Keon Chul Park & Dong-Hee Shin, 2017. "Security assessment framework for IoT service," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 193-209, January.
    12. Somsuk, Nisakorn & Laosirihongthong, Tritos, 2014. "A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-210.
    13. Rezaei, Jafar & Ortt, Roland, 2013. "Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 75-84.
    14. Engin ÇAKIR, 2017. "Application of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods on Six Sigma Projects Selection," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 132-138, March.
    15. Tolga, Ethem & Demircan, Murat Levent & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2005. "Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 89-117, July.
    16. Mandic, Ksenija & Delibasic, Boris & Knezevic, Snezana & Benkovic, Sladjana, 2014. "Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 30-37.
    17. Zhü, Kèyù, 2014. "Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 209-217.
    18. Ehsan Khanmohammadi & Mostafa Zandieh & Talieh Tayebi, 2019. "Drawing a Strategy Canvas Using the Fuzzy Best–Worst Method," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 20(1), pages 57-75, March.
    19. Lihui Liu & Hepu Deng, 2020. "A Fuzzy Approach for Ranking Discrete Multi-Attribute Alternatives under Uncertainty," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-12, June.
    20. Benyou Jia & Slobodan P. Simonovic & Pingan Zhong & Zhongbo Yu, 2016. "A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation Operations of Multi-Reservoir System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3363-3387, August.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:899-:d:1323205. 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.