Journals / Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1

APPLICATION OF COMPROMISE MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF TCDD'S RAILWAY LINES PROJECTS

TCDD İLTİSAK HATLARI PROJELERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİNDE UZLAŞIK ÇOK ÖLÇÜTLÜ KARAR VERME YÖNTEMLERİ UYGULAMASI

Pages
211–220
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ranking of VIKOR, which the criterias were weighted by MW method, has been determined that it was closest ranking to the integrated rankings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Investment decisions are one of the most important decision-making areas that are difficult and risky.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, there have been made a prioritization application for 78 alternative railway line connection project planned by the Republic of Turkey State Railways (TCDD) to nodes like Organized Industrial Zone (OSB), factory, plant etc. that are carrying high load capacity.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ranking of VIKOR, which the criterias were weighted by MW method, has been determined that it was closest ranking to the integrated rankings.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Investment decisions are one of the most important decision-making areas that are difficult and risky. Decisionmakers should take multiple alternatives and evaluation criteria into account for project evaluation for choosing the optimum alternative. In this study, there have been made a prioritization application for 78 alternative railway line connection project planned by the Republic of Turkey State Railways (TCDD) to nodes like Organized Industrial Zone (OSB), factory, plant etc. that are carrying high load capacity. The criteria used in the evaluation of the rail lines were weighted by three different criteria weighting methods such as CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation), Standard Deviation (SD) and Mean Weight (MW). Six different priority orders are determined for 78 railway line project by the application of TOPSIS and VIKOR Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. After the application of Borda Count Data Fusion Technique, an integrated ranking has been obtained by combining all the rankings derived. The rankings, which are obtained by MCDM method, were compared the integrated ranking method using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient (SRCC). Ranking of VIKOR, which the criterias were weighted by MW method, has been determined that it was closest ranking to the integrated rankings.

Özet

Karar vermenin zor ve riskli olduğu en önemli alanlardan birisi yatırım kararlarıdır. Karar vericiler projeleri değerlendirirken birden fazla alternatifi ve değerlendirme kriterini dikkate alarak en uygun alternatifi seçmek durumundadır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demir Yollarının (TCDD) yük taşıma kapasitesi yüksek olan Organize Sanayi Bölgesi (OSB), fabrika, tesis vb. 78 yere planladığı demiryolu bağlantısı (iltisak hattı) için bir önceliklendirme yapılmıştır. Demiryolu bağlantılarının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan kriterler; CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation), Standart Sapma (Standard Deviation-SD) ve Ortalama Ağırlık (Mean Weight- MW) gibi üç farklı kriter ağırlıklandırma yöntemi ile ağırlıklandırılmıştır. Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme (ÇÖKV) metotlarından TOPSIS ve VIKOR yöntemi uygulanarak bu 78 yer için altı farklı öncelik sırası belirlenmiştir. Belirlenen sıralamalar bir veri birleştirme yöntemi olarak bilinen Borda Sayım Metodu ile birleştirilerek bütünleşik tek bir sıralama elde edilmiştir. ÇÖKV yöntemleriyle elde edilen sıralamalar, Spearman Sıralama Korelasyon Katsayısı (SSKK) yöntemine göre bütünleşik sıralamayla karşılaştırılmıştır. MW yöntemiyle kriterlerin ağırlıklandırıldığı VIKOR sıralamasının bütünleşik sıralamaya en yakın sıralama olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇ, O., ÇERÇİOĞLU, H. (2022). APPLICATION OF COMPROMISE MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF TCDD'S RAILWAY LINES PROJECTS. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1, 211–220. https://ajindex.com/articles/523607

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Hwang, C.L. ve Yoon, K. P., Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods And Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981.
  2. Choudhary, D. ve Shankar, R., "An STEEPFuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Evaluation and Selection of Thermal Power Plant Location: A Case Study From India", Energy, Cilt 42, 510- 521, 2012. García, J.L., Alvarado, A., Blanco, J., Jiménez, E., Maldonado, A.A., Cortés, G., "MultiAttribute Evaluation and Selection Of Sites For Agricultural Product Warehouses Based On An Analytic Hierarchy Process", Computers And Electronics in Agriculture, Cilt 100, 60-69, 2014.
  3. Guo S. ve Zhao, H, "Optimal Site Selection of Electric Vehicle Charging Station by Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Based on Sustainability Perspective", Applied Energy, Cilt 158, 390- 402, 2015.
  4. Yılmaz, B. ve Dağdeviren, M., "Ekipman Seçimi Probleminde Promethee ve Bulanık Promethee Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi", Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, Cilt 25, No 4, 811-826, 2010. Girubha,R.J. ve Vinodh, S., "Application Fuzzy VIKOR And Environmental İmpact Analysis For Material Selection of an Automotive Component", Materials And Design, Cilt 37, 478-486, 2012.
  5. Kabak, M. ve Uyar, Ö.O., "Lojistik Sektöründe Ağır Ticari Araç Seçimi Problemine Çok Ölçütlü Bir Yaklaşım", Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, Cilt 28, No 1, 115-125, 2013.
  6. Dağdeviren, M., "Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ile Personel Seçimi ve Bir Uygulama", Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, Cilt 22, No 4,791-799, 2007.
  7. Dursun, M. ve Karsak E.E., "A Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Personnel Selection", Expert Systems With Applications, Cilt 37, 4324-4330,2010.
  8. Kazan H., Özçelik, S. ve Hobikoğlu, E.H., "Election of Deputy Candidates for Nomination with AHP-Promethee Methods", Procedia-Social Behavioral Sciences, Cilt 195, 603-613, 2015.
  9. Dağdeviren, M. ve Eraslan, E., "PROMETHEE Sıralama Yöntemiyle Tedarikçi Seçimi", Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, Cilt 23, No 1, 69-75, 2008.
  10. Arıkan, F. ve Küçükçe, Y.S., "Satın Alma Faaliyeti için Bir Tedarikçi SeçimiDeğerlendirme Problemi ve Çözümü", Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, Cilt 27, No 2, 255-264, 2012.
  11. Junior, F.R.L., Osiro, L., Carpinettia,L.C.R., "A Comparison Between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods Tosupplier Selection", Applied Soft Computing, Cilt 21, 194-209, 2014.
  12. Karsak, E.E. ve Dursu