Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Prioritize of Concrete Pavement
Keywords:
pavement: AHP, prioritize, CRCP, JPCP, PCP, JRCP
Abstract
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique for dealing with complex decisions that was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1980 year. It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. The base of this model is comparing variables by pair wise by Matrix relationship. In this way, pair wise of the effective variables on the concrete Pavement were considered and based on relative weights the output was extent.
Downloads
- Article PDF
- TEI XML Kaleidoscope (download in zip)* (Beta by AI)
- Lens* NISO JATS XML (Beta by AI)
- HTML Kaleidoscope* (Beta by AI)
- DBK XML Kaleidoscope (download in zip)* (Beta by AI)
- LaTeX pdf Kaleidoscope* (Beta by AI)
- EPUB Kaleidoscope* (Beta by AI)
- MD Kaleidoscope* (Beta by AI)
- FO Kaleidoscope* (Beta by AI)
- BIB Kaleidoscope* (Beta by AI)
- LaTeX Kaleidoscope* (Beta by AI)
How to Cite
References
J Barzilai, W Cook, B Golany (1987) Consistent weights for judgment matrices of the relative importance of alternatives. 6, 131-134.
J Barzilai, F Lootsma (1997) Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART. 6(3), 155-165.
T Belton, Gear (1983) on a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. 11, 228-230.
V Belton, T Gear (1985) The legitimacy of rank reversal -a comment. 1, 143-144.
L Meade, A Presley (2002) R&D Project selection using the analytic network process. 49(1), 59-66.
James Dyer (1990) A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process". 36(3), 274-275.
Ernest Forman (1990) AHP Is Intended for More Than Expected Value Calculations. 21(3), 670-672.
P Harker, L Vargas (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. 33, 1383-1403.
H Fazlollahtabar, I Mahdavi (2009) User/tutor optimal learning path in e-learning using comprehensive neuro-fuzzy approach. 4, 142-155.
L Leung, D Cao (2001) on the efficacy of modeling multiattribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy. 132, 39-49.
C Hwang, K Yoon (1981) Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications.
H Mianabadi, A Afshar (2008) Multi attribute Decision Making to rank urban water supply Scheme. 19(66), 34-45.
G Limon, Y Martinez (2006) Multi0criteria modeling of irrigation water Marked at basin level : aspsnish Case Study. 173, 313-336.
F Lootsma (1993) Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. 2(2), 87-110.
I Millet, T Saaty (2000) On the relativity of relative measures -accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. 121, 205-212.
P Dey, E Ramcharan (2000) Analytic hierarchy process helps select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados. 17.
Reay-Chen Wang, Tien-Fu Liang (2004) Application of fuzzy multi-objective linear programming to aggregate production planning. 46(1), 17-41.
R Ramanathan (2006) Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. 33, 1289-1307.
T Saaty (1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority, Resource Allocation.
Thomas Saaty (1986) Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 32(7), 841-855.
T Saaty (1987) Decision making, new information, ranking and structure. 8, 125-132.
T Saaty (1994) Highlights and critical points in the theory and applicationof the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 426-447.
Thomas Saaty (1987) RANK GENERATION, PRESERVATION, AND REVERSAL IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY DECISION PROCESS. 18(2), 157-177.
Thomas Saaty, Masahiro Takizawa (1986) Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. 26(2), 229-237.
T Saaty, L Vargas (1984) The legitimacy of rank reversal. 12(5), 513-516.
T Saaty, L Vargas, R Wendell (1983) Assessing attribute weights by ratios. 11, 9-13.
Thomas Saaty, Luis Vargas (1993) Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. 17(4-5), 13-18.
Bertram Schoner, William Wedley (1989) Ambiguous Criteria Weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions*. 20(3), 462-475.
B Schoner, W Wedley, E Choo (1992) A rejoinder to Forman on AHP, with emphasis on the requirements of composite ratio scales. 23, 509-517.
B Schoner, W Wedley, E Choo (1993) A unified approach to AHP with linking pins. 384-392.
Bertram Schoner, Eng Choo, William Wedley (1997) A Comment on 'Rank Disagreement: A Comparison of Multi-Criteria Methodologies'. 6(4), 197-200.
T Stewart (1992) A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. 20, 569-586.
E Triantaphyllou (2001) Two new cases of rank reversal s when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. 10, 11-25.
M Troutt (1988) Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. 16, 365-367.
L Vargas (1994) Reply to Schenkerman's avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models. 420-425.
H Mianabadi, A Afshar (2007) Fuzzy group Decision Making and its Application in water Resource Planning and Management.
S Mousavi, M; F; Chitsazan, Y Mirzaei, M; B ; Shaan, H Mohammadi (2010) EVALUATION OF GROUND WATER POTENTIAL OF NALLATANGAAL ODAI USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS TECHNIQUES. 3(7), 72-80.
S Watson, A Freeling (1982) Assessing attribute weights. 10, 582-583.
S Watson, A Freeling (1983) Assesing Attribute Weights. 10(6), 582-583.
Published
2014-01-30
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2013 Authors and Global Journals Private Limited
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.