ZZY

sets and systems

ELSEVIER Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183

Fuzzy sets modeling and optimization for disaster

control systems planning
Augustine 0. Esogbue*
School of lndustrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0205, USA
Received June 1995

Abstract

Various forms of disasters, natural and man-made, abound. Although, to some extent, some of these have been
exacerbated by modern civilization, various technologies have been invoked to control or mitigate their adverse effects.
Modeling- and optimization-based techniques have also been employed. We outline some efforts based on fuzzy sets
theory which are utilized in conjunction with classical methods to enhance the reliability and utility of these efforts. In
particular, disasters caused by floods and storm water pollution are used as vehicles for the exemplification of our models.

Keywords: Disaster control planning; Flood control; National and regional levels; Fuzzy modeling and optimization;
Fuzzy dynamic programming; Data generation

1. Introduction appears that we are unable to assess accurately and

In recent times, we have learned of the occur-
rence of various forms of disasters in many parts of
the world. Some of these are natural, while others
result from man-made systems or structures. A few
examples of these are nuclear power plant failures,
earthquakes, floods, oil spillage in the oceans, forest
fires, storm water pollution destroying surface
waters and ecosystems, etc. The magnitude of the
damages due to each of these occurrences can be
immense. Confounding our attempts to cope with
these problems is mankind's apparent inability to
predict and control accurately the incipience of
these disasters. Additionally, once they occur, it
*E mail: augustine.esogbue@isye.gatech.edu.
reliably the nature and extent of these damages,
both rapidly and with minimal resource consump-
tion. An immediate consequence of this dilemma is
poor and suboptimal responses in an attempt to
mitigate the deleterious effects of these disasters.
The problems sketched in the foregoing are con-
tinually being wrestled with by planners and vari-
ous agencies charged with the responsibility for
their amelioration. Systems science is considered
central to these planning and response efforts. It
has become recognized that a solo employment of
engineering structures and devices can prove to be
quite an ineffective control strategy in mitigating
the deleterious effects of various disasters. Indeed,
this practice has, at times, led to a false sense of
protection and resulted in poor or lack of prepared-
ness for dealing with the disasters. Hence, the use of

0165-0114/96/$15.00 1996 ElsevierScienceB.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0 1 6 5 - 0 1 1 4 ( 9 5 ) 0 0 2 4 8 - 0
170 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183
National
~resent Tol
Catastrophe
Potential
None X
--
Fig. 1. Trends and limits of adjustments to floods (Source: [5]).
some mix or combination of structural and non-
structural measures in attacking the problem is
advocated.
As an illustration of the foregoing, consider the
flood control problem. In this case, the engineering
(protective) measures such as levees, flood walls,
channel improvements and storage reservoirs are
considered structural while the nonstructural
measures would typically consist of flood plain
zoning, flood proofing, purchase of portions of the
flood plain, land use conversion, warning and
evacuation, relief and rehabilitation, and flood in-
surance. As Fig. 1 indicates, while a number of these
may be beneficial at certain tolerable disaster levels,
they are totally useless or inadequate for coping
with catastrophes of immense magnitude such as
those that struck the mid-west region of the US in
1993 and southern Georgia in July of 1994.
A further analysis of the net benefits of various
measures as a function of the magnitude of the
catastrophe suggests that some adroit combination
of these measures would be beneficial. Reliance on
any one of them may provide a false sense of secur-
ity leading to rather unwise practices. Determ-
ination of an optimal combination or policy is,
however, a very difficult task indeed. This is
due to many reasons. For one thing, the effects
Present
Balance ~
I
x
Net Benefits
of these problems and control policies are highly
interactive.
To illustrate, we exhibit in a matrix format (see
Fig. 2) the interaction of these various adjustments.
The next task is to fill in the cells as indicated.
Doing so via classical approaches results in very
vaguely defined protocols. We feel that proper
evaluation of the cells in the matrix using such
descriptors as 'high stimulation', 'little or none',
and 'doubtful', etc., can be systematically and sub-
stantially aided by fuzzy set theory. This is also the
case with the evaluation of damages or costs of
disasters, especially when these need to be obtained
rather expeditiously as is usually the case in the
hectic and painful moments immediately following
the incipience of such disasters.
Fuzzy mathematical programming has matured
considerably in recent times. Applications to nu-
merous areas have also been reported and several
reviews, surveys, and tutorials abound. Notable
among these are Verdagay [13], Lai and Hwang
[10], and Zimmermann [15]. In the sequel, we
present a general mathematical statement of the
optimal adjustment to the disaster control problem
and outline aspects of a fuzzy mathematical pro-
gramming approach which we have developed
and described in various places for addressing the
 A.O. Esogbue t Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183 171

/
InitialAdjustment f_~ _ . / _~" / . / f f ~

l / //Jl
Controland 0 0 0 0 0
Protection

Flood-
Proofing 0 0 O 9 0

LandUse
Plannlng 0 9 0

Warnings 0 O O 9 0

,.snrance 0 ? ? 0
Reliefand
Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0

Key. Stimulatedbytheinitialadjustment:
- Highstimulation
D - Littleor none
9 . Doubtful
Fig. 2. Matrix of interaction of adjustments to floods (Source: [5]).

problem. In addition, we consider a data evaluation DCP: max f ( x , y )

stratagem, particularly suited to the membership
functions that appear in the various models. These
and other aspects not treated previously are essen-
tial for the model implementation.
2. Mathematical models of disaster control
A very general model of the disaster control
problem involving the use of a vector combination
of structural and nonstructural measures and
which forms the leitmotif of our study is as follows:
Find a combination (x,y) of structural (x) and non-
structural (y) measures so as to
s.t. (x,y) ~ @(x,y), (1)
xeX, y ~ Y,
in which x = (xl, x2, - . - , X N ) is the vector of struc-
tural measures, where xj = 1 if structural measure
j is selected and 0 if not; y = (Yx,Y2 . . . . . Yk) is the
vector of nonstructural measures, where Yk is the
level of the kth nonstructural measure selected,
f(x,y) is the objective function; e.g., the discounted
net reduction in flood damages resulting from plan
(x,y); I,(x,y) is the set of feasible plans (x,y), i.e.,
those satisfying the planning, financial, engineering,
and social constraints, and X and Y, respectively,
172 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169 183
are the sets of feasible structural and nonstructural
measures.
In the literature, it is customarily assumed that
nonstructural measures essentially compliment
a given set of structural measures as far as damage
reduction is concerned. In keeping with this practice,
and assuming further that they may vary over time,
the general formulation given in (1) then reduces to
the determination of y* so as to minimize the ex-
pected damages in year t. This can be expressed as
P(l, t) = min {O(I,y, t) + C(y, t)},
ye Y~Gil)
where D(l,y, t) is the annual damage in the tth year
for a given combination I of the structural measures
with the level of nonstructural measures aty, C(y, t)
is the annual cost incurred in the tth year with the
levels of the nonstructural measures aty, and ~/, and
Y are similar to those defined in the (DCP) prob-
lem. P(I,t) denotes the minimal sum of the net
annual damages and the non-structural measures
costs in the tth year for the combination l of the
structural measures.
3. Fuzzy mathematical models of the disaster
control problem
Despite the utility of the above model, it possesses
certain limitations which need to be addressed.
These include: its local nature and an inherent diffi-
culty, computational and otherwise, to apply it on
a regional or national level. A more serious concern
is its inability to incorporate satisfactorily and dir-
ectly certain persistent as well as pervasive systemic
variables which are intrinsically fuzzy and imprecise.
In other words, the classical approach such as
Morin et al.'s suffers from all the well-known objec-
tions to the use of crisp models to represent socio-
technical and dynamical large-scale systems.
In the present effort, we revisit a novel approach
which we have proposed to address the Disaster
Control Problem (DCP). In particular, we show how
the tools of fuzzy sets and possibility theory, can be
adroitly combined with methods of large-scale sys-
tems problem solving theory to solve an otherwise
intractable social problem. To concretize our dis-
cussion, we use floods as a manifestation of a disas-
ter control problem with immense potential for un-
told losses, both in terms of human and financial
capital. Extension to other forms of disasters may be
made with minimal adjustment to the models. We
next outline some of the steps followed to acquire
and process the various data requirements of the
models.
The primary motivation for our approach is the
strong belief that, in the environmental systems
analysis field, a substantive departure from the con-
ventional crisp quantitative way of modeling is
(2) needed both because of modeling and implementa-
tion exigencies. Such an approach would provide
the researcher with a more close-to-reality repre-
sentation of complex or ill-defined phenomena as
employed by planners. This should lead to more
effective common sense control policies for a wide
variety of practical problems.
As stated in our previous exposition, the D C P is
a complex web of problems involving engineering,
economic, environmental, social and management
aspects. It therefore deals with entities and relations
which are often not precisely known and indeed are
difficult to quantify. A fuzzy approach appears to
be more natural and appropriate than classical
methods. In particular, the difficulty of dis-associat-
ing crisply the impacts (benefits) of interacting con-
trol strategies, usually the case with nonstructural
measures, is minimized by allowing the use of fuzzy
variables or descriptors.
To reiterate, we have developed two versions of
a fuzzy mathematical programming formulation of
this problem. It is noteworthy that they both view
the problem as a fuzzy dynamic programming prob-
lem. In addition to different philosophical problem
modeling tact, there are also computational philo-
sophical differences. Version 1 is solved by employing
a modification of a fuzzy branch and bound proced-
ure first proposed by Kacprzyk [8] employing as
simple downward search algorithm. Version 2 looks
at the problem using a decomposition scheme similar
to the one we developed in our studies of the cancer
research appropriation process [-3].
3.1. Version 1 [6]
The details of this model are discussed in the
above-cited reference. Briefly, the problem is posed
 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183 173

Table 1
Fuzzy hazard control model, version 1 (Two Optimal Policies)

State space: the flood damage level (no, slight, moderate, severe, disastrous)
Decision Space: the investment level for the measures (low, medium, high)

The membershipfunction of initial state

X0 = 0.1/no + 0.4/slight + 0.7/moderate + 1.0/severe + 0.8/disastrous
The membershipfunction of ooal state
G1 = 0.4/no + 0.6/slight + 0.6/moderate + 0.7/severe + 0.5/disastrous
G2 = 0.9/no + 0.7/slight + 0.5/moderate + 0.3/severe + 0.1/disastrous
G3 = 1.0/no + 0.8/slight + 0.4/moderate + 0.1/severe + 0.0/disastrous
The membershipfunction of constraint for measures
C1 = 0.45/low + 0.85/medium + 0.65/high
C2 = 1.00/low + 0.80/medium + 0.60/laigh
C3 = 0.50/low + 0.70/medium + 0.90/high
The fuzzy transform matrix for state, control and stage (transition mappings)
T 1 (low) T 1 (medium) T 1 (high)
0.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.2 0,3 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
T2(low) T2(medium) T2 (high)
0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 I
0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.4
0.2 0.3
0.1 0.2
0.0 0.1
T3(low)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.1 0.3 0.5
0.0 0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.1
T3(medium)
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
T3 (high)
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.5 I
0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.2
0.2 0.3
0.2 0.6
0.3 0.9 0.3
0.6 0.9
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2

as a m u l t i s t a g e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o b l e m in a fuzzy d(XN, G N) b e t w e e n t h e t w o fuzzy sets:

environment with the system under control repre-
s e n t e d as a c o n d i t i o n e d fuzzy set w h i c h is r e p r e -
s e n t e d v i a its m e m b e r s h i p f u n c t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , t h e
d(XN,GN)= (1) (,=~II~x'(X,)--/~o'(Xl)I) (4)

c o n t r o l s , c o n s t r a i n t s a n d s y s t e m s d y n a m i c s a r e all
e x p r e s s e d in t e r m s o f t h e i r m e m b e r s h i p f u n c t i o n s . It
is a s s u m e d t h a t at e a c h s t a g e i, a fuzzy g o a l G i w i t h
membership function
~G,(xi) (3)
is set, a n d t h e a i m o f t h e c o n t r o l / ~ , is to r e t u r n t h e
s t a t e o f t h e s y s t e m xi as close as p o s s i b l e to a p r e -
d e t e r m i n e d o n e g i v e n b y G ~. T o m e a s u r e t h e close-
ness b e t w e e n XN a n d G u, t h e r e l a t i v e d i s t a n c e
is u s e d w i t h n, t h e n u m b e r of all p o s s i b l e states t h a t
t h e s y s t e m c a n be in.
F o r e x a m p l e , u s i n g f l o o d as i l l u s t r a t i v e of a
m a j o r disaster, t h e fuzzy s t a t e o f f l o o d d a m a g e is
r e p r e s e n t e d o n five levels a c c o r d i n g to t h e f o l l o w -
i n g t e r m sets: n o d a m a g e , slight d a m a g e , m o d e r a t e
damage, severe damage, and disastrous damage.
T h e d e c i s i o n s p a c e is t h e s p a c e o f t h r e e i n v e s t m e n t
levels for e a c h o f the t h r e e f l o o d c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s .
174 A. O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183

Table 2
Solution

The calculations are now performed for the various stages beginning with stage 1.
Stage 1
v l ' (low) = 0.45
vl' ( m e d i u m ) = 0.85***
v l ' ( h i g h ) = 0.65
Xlm = 0.4/no + 0.7/slight + 0.9/moderate + 0.8/severe + 0.6/disastrous
1.0 - D[Xlm, G1] = 1.0 - [0.0 + 0.1 + 0.3 + 0.1 + 0 . 1 ] / 5 = 0.88
vl ( m e d i u m ) = 0.85 A 0.88 = 0.85

Stage 2
v2' (low) = 1.00 A 0.85 = 0.85***
v2' ( m e d i u m ) = 0.80 A 0.85 = 0.80***
v2' (high) = 0.60 A 0.85 = 0.60
X 2 m 1 = 0 . 7 / n o - 0 . 7 / s l i g h t + 0.7/moderate + 0 . 6 / s e v e r e + 0.4/disastrous
1.0 - D[X2ml,G2] = 1.0 - [0.2 + 0.0 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0 . 3 ] / 5 = 0.80
X 2 m m = 0 . 7 / n o - 0 . 8 / s l i g h t + 0.8/moderate + 0 . 6 / s e v e r e + 0.5/disastrous
1.0 - D [ X 2 m m , G 2 ] = 1.0 -- [0.2 + 0.1 + 0.3 + 0.3 + 0 . 4 ] / 5 = 0.74
v2 (low) = 0.85 A 0.80 + 0 . 8 0 * * *
v2 ( m e d i u m ) = 0.80 A 0.74 = 0.74**

Stage 3
vY (low) = 0.50 A 0.80 = 0.50
v3' ( m e d i u m ) = 0.70/X 0.80 = 0.70
v3' ( h i g h ) = 0 . 9 0 / x 0.80 = 0.80***
X 3 m l h = 0 . 7 / n o + 0.6/slight + 0.6/moderate + 0 . 4 / s e v e r e + 0.3/disastrous
1.0 - D[X3mlh, G3] = 1.0 - I-0.3 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0 . 3 ] / 5 = 0.74
v3 (high) = 0.80 A 0.74 = 0.74
v3' (low) = 0.50 A 0.74 = 0.50
v3' ( m e d i u m ) = 0 . 7 0 / k 0.74 = 0.70
v3' ( h i g h ) = 0.90 A 0.74 = 0.74***
X 3 m m h = 0 . 8 / n o + 0 . 6 / s l i g h t + 0.6/moderate + 0 . 5 / s e v e r e + 0.3/disastrous
1.0 - D [ X 3 m m h , G 3 ] = 1.0 - [0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.4 + 0 . 3 ] / 5 -- 0.74
v3 (high) = 0.74 A 0.74 = 0.74
The optimal policies are thus both (medium, low, high) and (medium, medium, high)

The control measures could be either structural,
nonstructural or a combination of them. Typical
examples of structural measures used in the United
States are levees, flood walls, channel improvements,
and storage reservoirs while the nonstructural
measures include: flood plain zoning, flood proofing,
purchase of portions of the flood plain, land use
conversion, warning, evacuation, relief and rehabili-
tation, and flood insurance. The measures then rep-
resent the stages of the fuzzy decision model.
The model has three fuzzy goals, different for
each measure, and three fuzzy constraints, as well
as a fuzzy initial system state. Each of these is
expressed in terms of their membership functions.
The problem then is to determine the optimal com-
bination of controls or measures together with their
funding levels so as to minimize the damage levels
due to incipient floods.
The approach proposed by Kacprzyk was modi-
fied and then applied to the flood control problem.
The computerized model was exercised in two
sample problems illustrating two different results:
(i) a situation where the optimal solution was
unique and (ii) another where it was not. We pre-
sent the case where more than one optimal solution
resulted in Table 1, while the solution is given in
Table 2. This disadvantage may be minimized by
the simplicity of the algorithm and the possibility of
 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183
its use in conjunction with the sieve approach of
determine optimal policies in relatively less com-
plex scenarios.
As noted earlier, the essential aspects of a very
general model of a fuzzy decision system solved by
branch and bound method was first proposed by
Kacprzyk [8]. Because of the simple structure of
the model, the solution algorithm involved only
a single directional search down the branch of
a decision tree. We note that this is a one level
model, whereas the approach which we propose in
Section 3.2 is not and employs a completely differ-
ent modeling philosophy.
3.2. Version 2 [7]
This version of the problem which we proposed
in [7] seems to always provide a unique optimal
solution. However, it is computationally more tedi-
ous than the first one. We have given a detailed
exposition of both the model and algorithm [7].
The model has two components, namely, the core
and the expanded models while the algorithm has
three levels, namely the regional, national and
a model for coordination. In the sequel, we present
for the national level." phase 2
only the core model which, without loss of general-
ity, gives the bare bones of the problem. The ex-
panded version is intended to more closely mirror
a given scenario incorporating, for example, certain
realistic constraints. To avoid unnecessary duplica-
tion, we omit the regional model and refer the
reader to [7]. We however, take the liberty of
providing the national one for ease of reference.
The following symbols and definitions will be
found useful in the presentation that follows: n, the
index of region; k, the index of flood control
measure; j, the index of flood control investment
level; and i, the index of flood damage level.
At the national level, Phase 2, the following are
used: C(j), the membership function of constraint
for the nation; G(j), the membership function of
goal for the nation; and Cn(j), the membership
function of investment constraint for region n; G(j),
the membership function of goal for region n: J, the
upper bound of total investment for the nation;
while W., the weight or criticality of region n.
In the foregoing, C(j) and G(j) are defined on the
set of all of the possible investment levels for the
175
nation, while C.(j) and G.(j) are similarly defined
for region n. When used in regions, the symbols
have the following additional meanings: 1.(i), the
membership function of initial states in region n;
F.(i), the membership function of final states
in region n; G.(i), the membership function of goal
of states in region n; J., the upper bound of total
investment for region n; and C.k(j), the membership
function of constraint for measure k in region n.
Once again, we note that I.(i), F.(i) and G.(i) are
defined on the state space of all of the possible flood
damage levels for region n, while C.k(j) is similarly
defined on the decision space for measure k in
region n. Additionally, we need the fuzzy matrix of
state transform for measure k in region n at the
investment level j. Let this be denoted by T.kj(i, i).
We note that T.kj(i, i) is an l x l matrix, where l is
the dimension of the state space (all of the possible
flood damage levels for region n). It represents the
fuzzy relation between the membership function of
states before and after measure k has been put into
use at the investment level j.
3.2.1. A core fuzzy model of flood control
The core model for the problem at the national
level or phase 2 may be viewed as that of a multi-
stage decision-making process for a nonfuzzy sys-
tem in fuzzy environment [12]. This is in contrast
to the regional level model in which both the sys-
tem and its environment were considered fuzzy. In
this phase, the usual concepts of stage, decision,
and state are defined as follows: stage, the region
for flood control; decision, the level of total invest-
ment for region (in US dollars) and, state, the effect
of flood control for region.
As in the regional model, the following input
data (all fuzzy) are necessary: C,(j), the membership
function of constraint for region n (n = i, 2 . . . . ,10);
G.(j), the membership function of goal for region
n (n = 1, 2, ..., 10); and W., the weight or relative
importance of region w.r.t, control n (n = I, ..., i0).
The resultant fuzzy mathematical program may
then be stated as
= V {R,(jl) + "-' + R.(j.) + ... + Rlo(J,o)}
J~ ...)~o
(5)
176 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183

s.t. R,(j,) = [Gn(j,) A C,(j,)] W,,
n = 1, ... ,10,
W] + ... + W , + ... + W l o = l,
where is the algebraic product operator and
R,(j,) is the return function for stage n, i.e., region
n. Solution of the foregoing generates the output
data j* and 4) where j* is the optimal investment
level for region n (n = 1 . . . . ,10) and ~ is the opti-
mal weighted sum of effect of flood control for the
nation.
3.3 Fuzzy model for coordination." phase 3
levels - regional and national, we present a linkage
program for coordinating the preceding two
(6)
phases. This phase is basically a single-stage deci-
(7) sion-making process for a nonfuzzy system in
a fuzzy environment by standard fuzzy decision-
making procedures. We note that the resultant
models can be viewed as three nested dynamic
programming models thus obviating any concern
for duality gaps or similar problems present in
classical decomposition algorithms. The model, re-
quires the following as input data: C(j) and G(j)
which are, respectively, the membership functions
of constraint and goal at the national level.
The mathematical program is then

Since this is a hierarchical model in which a

= V [G(j) A C(j)]. (8)
national planning problem is decomposed into two j~ [0,J]

Start )

Input the Datafor

Regionn I
P~ sel I
v I
[ C~,eProd'am _,,.1 [Zl

J
r Save the Solution]
of Regionn

[3] Inputthe Datafor

National

PI se II [4] I MergeandPrcess ? ._J

CombinedData

I' 'J
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( s, )
Fig. 3. Flow chart for data requirements and processing.
 A,O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183
Solution of this optimization problem leads to the
output data j* and ~, where j* is the optimal
investment level for control management for the
nation, and ~b is the degree to which the optimal
control plan satisfies the national objective.
A practical algorithm for implementing Phase
3 model is basically a three-step procedure which
again is described in our previous work and there-
fore omitted here.
4. Data acquisition and processing
4.1. Introduction
The mathematical and computer models that we
have developed and implemented in these models
require various resources for their implementation
in the real world. There are at least two primary
issues. The first deals with data requirements of the
models and some suggested procedures for their
generation. The second is process oriented and
addresses computational realization of the models
considering computational complexity and com-
puter resource requirements. The purpose of this
section is to provide some tour of these problems
and concerns.
4.2. Generation of essential data
As a vehicle for these inquiries, we provide a glo-
bal flow chart of the two-phase program omitting,
without loss of generality, the linkage program.
This chart is given in Fig. 3 and followed by some
brief notes (see Table 3) isolating the kernels of the
program. Central to the first phase is the Core
Program. The essentials of this program are sum-
marized in Fig. 4.
The most significant data packets required to
implement the models in each of the phases have
been isolated and summarized for ease of reference
in Fig. 5. Equally important is the concern about
the various methods for the acquisition of these
data as well as some possible sources for them. We
provide this information in Fig. 6. Further explana-
tion of data requirements is given in Fig. 7.
It must be recalled that the models represented
the various fuzzy variables such as state, goals,
177
Table 3
N o t e s for flow chart a of Fig. 3.
Ill C k, k = 1 . . . . . K
Gk, k = 1 , . . . , K
Tk(dj),j = 1 . . . . . J, k = 1, ... ,K, X
[2] D R, k = 1 . . . . . K, where D k is the o p t i m u m c o n t r o l level
a m o n g dj for kth m e a s u r e
[3] W., n = 1 . . . . . 10
G",n=l,...,lO
/(, w h e r e / ( is the n u m b e r of best m e a s u r e s d e t e r m i n e d in
Phase 1
[4] (1) X = ~.11 W . X ( n ) where X(n) is the X of region n.
(2) T"(d,) = Tk[Dk], k = 1 . . . . . /(, n = 1 . . . . . 10 where D k
is the o p t i m u m control level for the kth m e a s u r e in
region n. Tk[D k] is the t r a n s f o r m m a t r i x for the kth
m e a s u r e w i t h c o n t r o l level D k in region n.
(3) G" = W,G", n = 1 . . . . ,10.
" A l s o see the C o r e P r o g r a m (Fig. 4) for m o r e details.
constraints, decisions and transitions in terms of
their respective membership functions. The deter-
mination and measurement of these functions in
the real world has always been somewhat of
a thorny problem in the use of fuzzy sets in systems
modeling. Various methods, mathematical and
otherwise, for their generation are discussed in
[3-5, 15, 16], to name a few. We have suggested an
instructive and practical algorithm for their genera-
tion in the case of the problem of current interest.
Essentially, the data acquired from the experts and
specialists are converted to membership functions
through the practical algorithm displayed in Fig. 8.
5. An illustrative example
We sketch the basic operation of the algorithm at
the regional level. For its use at the national level,
the interested reader is referred to Esogbue et al.
[6], where a regional example with 5 discretization
levels for the state space, 4 for the control space and
4 flood control measures was solved. The regional
solution was [1, 2, 0, 1] or [low, medium, none,
low] implying a low-level investment on the first
flood control strategy, medium on the second, none
on the third, and low on the fourth.
When the same program was run with the state
space further discretized into 6 instead of 5 levels,
 178 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183

Notations

(1) State: S~, i = ] ..... [; Decisioq: dj, j = l ..... J; .~ta,g.~.: k = l , . . . , K .

(2) Membershin Function ( k = l ..... K)

state: X k =(x kI ..... x~k ..... x~)T i.C.,P.x=(S)=Xk/S,+...+X~/Si+ ...+x kI / s I

constraint:
k k k
C = (c z.....c i .....c~)T i.e.,l~c,(d)=c~/d ,+...+c~/di+ ...+c~/d,

goal: O ' = ( g f ..... gf ..... g~)T i'e"~c*(S)= gl/St

, + ' " + g l, / S i + ' " + g ~ / S l

(3)

Tk(dj), j = l ..... ], k = l ..... K

yk(dj) = Tk(dj)oX k-' where o is the max-rain product operator

(4) Return Function

rj = T t[Y (dpJ-g, , j = l ..... J; k--1 ..... K

- k--1 ..... K
J

R' = mill{Rk}, R - , R = UppcrandlowerbotmdsofRrespecfivcly

k

Data (1) Inout (2) O u t o u t

C k , k = l ..... K; Dk, k = l ..... K

G k, k= 1,...,K; R ~, k= 1 ..... K
Tk(dj),j=l .....J, k = l .....K; X k,k=l .....K
X. R', R-= R

Fig. 4. Summary of essentials of the core program.

(i.e. 6 x 6 transition matrix) and different member- 6. Discussion

ship functions for both the constraint and goal
state, the same optimal decision and values were
obtained. The data are given in Table 4, while the
solution is shown in Table 5.
The c o m p u t e r output is given in Table 5.
A brief overview of our efforts in modeling the
optimal control planning for disasters using an
adroit combination of structural and nonstructural
control measures via the mathematical technique of
 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183 179

~ee Notation Meanln8

state
S i, i=l,...,I Discretize
i
~control)
level
d j , J=l . . . . . J

Ck O Constraint for
Gk k=l,...,K .for each measure k uch
Goal region
Tkcdj), j = t . . . . . J Transform Matrix for each

k=t . . . . ,Z measure k a t c o n t r o l l e v e l dj

X Initial S t a t e

Gn , n=l,...,lO Goal f o r each r e s i o n , n

II
Wn, n - l , . . . , l O Weieht f o r each r e $ i o n , n

Fig. 5. Data requirements summary.

Data Method Source

Xo Predictions or forecast Hydrologic and hydraulic

(e.g., time series analysis) experts

AtlP ( A n a l y t i c Hierarchy NFIP specialists

Process)

C,G,T. Delphi FE~A r e g i o n a l o f f i c i a l s

Fig. 6. Possible methods and sources of data stipulated in the model.

 180 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183

(l) C k: The degree of w i l l i n g n e s s to invest dj on the k-th measure

Ck

T
(2) Gk: T h e d e g r e e of belief that the state level will be attained
w h e n u s i n g the k-th m e a s u r e

1 . . . .

w h e r e a k, .k are th~k l o ~ t and ~ighest s t a t e levels

~spectively that w e can expect when using the k-th measure.
(3) Tk(dj): The r e l a t i o n between the state of the system before
and a f t e r the k-th measure has been e m p l o y e d at the d i
i n v e s t m e n t level, z.e.

X k'1 = Tk(dj) o Xk

w h e r e X k'1, X k are the states after and before; o is the max-min

p r o d u c t operator.

(4) X: The degree of belief that the state level will be at a

c e r t a i n v a l u e using any m e a s u r e i.e. initial state level.

(5) Wn: The relative importance of the n-th region in the scheme of
things.

I0
ZW.= l
n=l

(6) G": The desired state level to be achieved in region n

G"
i .

, , ~_ $
0 an St 8n

where an is the lowest acceDtable state level and 8n i s ~hQ

Fig. 7. E x p l a n a t i o n of d a t a requirements.

fuzzy sets is described. The use of fuzzy sets along bound variety is considered to be an efficient way
with classical dynamic programming models and to resolve, with enhanced reliability and ease, the
solved via a hybrid algorithm of the branch and problem of optimal planning for the control of
 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183 181

Label for e a c h e v a l u a t o r as follows and consider two

Step 1: types of e v a l u a t i o n ( A & B )

TYPE A : I ' ' ) ~ ' ' ~ - ' L - - ' , - - N - - + - - * - - U - - * - . ~ L - . > j

o. 1h 2h . . . . . . Jh

TYPE I : - " "" " +" "~'- - L- -',- - +-- +- "U" -*- -',- - ) j

o. I t` 2 A . . . . . . Jh

TYPE C : I ......... N ......... I Ruutlty Scare

O. 1.

TYPE O : I ............. x . . . . . I Confidence Lever

O~ I00~

where A: the interval between two value points

L: the l a b e l for t h e l o w e r b o u n d of t h e v a l u e
U: the label for t h e u p p e r b o u n d of t h e v a l u e
M: the label for t h e m o s t p o s s i b l e / p r e f e r a b l e v a l u e
X: the d e g r e e of c o n f i d e n c e for v a l u e l a b e l e d

Step 2: Construct the membership function for each evaluatot as follows:

Type A: )l(j)
I

. . . . _ o t ~ j

o. l& 2A ... ... Jh

0. j<L
[j - (L - A)]/tM - (L - A) ] L _<j<M
or ~l(j) = 1. j=M
t(u + A) - 511[(0 + A) - M] M<j<_U
O. u<j
Type B: /uCj)
I
1.1
~ i " " + ....
II
; _ i i 4
O. 1h ZA I~
.. ... ,I A
i
j<L
or t.(U + A) - J ] I t ( U + A) - (L - All L_<j<U
u<j

Fig. 8. An algorithm for the construction of membership functions.

a complex socio-technical system such as that en- more rational planning of efforts to obviate the
countered in disaster control systems. consequences of such horrible human experiences.
Computerization of these models will aid the
generation of first cut, approximate solutions which
are useful inputs to the decision making process. References
The frequency of occurrence of these disasters to- [1] E.M. Babiker and H. Fujihara, Constructing membership
gether with the enormity of their damages warrant functions for relative distances using an empirical method,
that fresh and useful aids be provided planners for FTT '92 (1992) 103-108.
 182 A.O. Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183

Step 3: Data P r o c e s s i n g : Amalgamation o f Q u a l i t y S c a l e and

Confidence Level

S t e p 3.1: Combine the factors, quality scale and

confidence level, i.e., C+D as follows:

Type C+D: /t(i)

|. - . . . . . o o . t . . . . . . .

o. L M u
O. i<L
- LI/[M - L 1 L < i<M
ifM
or /a(i)-1:_ill[U_M l M < i _< U
U<i

where U - M + (I. - X) zad L = M - (i. - X)

step 3.2 s Combine | b membenhip hmctiou from ~ ~sluston u follows:

/a(j) m ~ l ( j ) 4-... +/Up(j) 4-... +pp{J)l/2
where tip(j) : the membership function for pth evlduator
R : total numknr d ~alustors

Fig. 8. Contd.

[2] M.R. Civanclar and H.J. Trussell, Constructing member-
ship functions using statistical data, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems 18 (1986) 1-13.
[3] A.O. Esogbue, Dynamic programming, fuzzy sets and the
modelling of R&D management control systems, IEEE
Trans. System Man Cybernet. SMC-13 (1983) 18-30.
[4] A.O. Esogbue, Dynamic Pro#rammingfor Optimal Water
Resources Systems (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.,
1989).
[5] A.O. Esogbue, Computational aspects and applications of
a branch and bound algorithm for fuzzy multistage deci-
sion processes, Comput. Math. Appl. 21 (1991) 117-127.
[6] A.O. Esogbue and R.E. Bellman, Fuzzy dynamic program-
ming and its extensions, Fuzzy Sets and Decision Analysis,
TIMS Stud. Management Sci. 20 (1984) 147-167.
[7] A.O. Esogbue, M. Theologidu and K. Guo, On the ap-
plication of fuzzy sets theory to the optimal flood control
problem arising in water resources systems, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 48 (1992) 155-172.
[8] J. Kacprzyk, A branch-and-boundalgorithm for the multi-
stage control of a fuzzy system in fuzzy environment,
Kybernetes $ (1979) 139-147.
[9] J. Kacprzyk and A.O. Esogbue, Fuzzy dynamic program-
ming and its applications: a survey, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
(this issue).
[10] Y.J. Lai and C.L. Hwang, Fuzzy MathematicalProgramming:
Methods and Applications (Springer, Heidelberg, 1992).
[11] T.L. Morin, W.L. Meier and K.S. Nagaraj, Dynamic pro-
gramming for flood control planning: the optimal mix of
adjustments to floods, in: A.O. Esogbue, Ed., Dynamic
Programmingfor Optimal Water Resources Systems Analy-
sis (1989).
[12] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process(McGraw.Hill,
New York, 1980).
[13] J.L. Verdegay, Fuzzy mathematical programming, in:
M.M. Gupta, E. Sanchez, Eds., Approximate Reasoning in
Decision Analysis (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)
231-236.
 A.O, Esogbue / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81 (1996) 169-183 183

Table 4
A flood control problem using version 2 model: the data for the regional allocation problem

State space {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} or (no, slight, moderate, grievous, severe, disastrous}

Decision space {0, 1, 2, 3} or {no, low, medium, high}
Initial state:
l = 0.13/no + 0.35/slight + 0.57/moderate + 0.78/grievous + 0.95/severe + 0.69/disastrous
Goal state: G = 1.00/no + 0.85/slight + 0.65/moderate + 0.40/grievous + 0.10/severe + 0.00/disastrous
Constraint: C1 = 1.00/no + 0.80/low + 0.57/medium + 0.31/high
C2 = 1.00/no + 0.35/low + 0.89/medium + 0.19/high
C3 = 1.00/no + 0.59/low + 0.68/medium + 0.36/high
C4 = 1.00/no + 0.75/1ow + 0.60/medium + 0.27/high
Transform matrix:
T 1 (low) T1 (medium) Tl (high)
0.3,0.9,0.4,0.2,0.1,0.0 0.4, 0.7, 0.3, 0.1,0.0, 0.0 0.4, 0.6, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
0.1,0.3,0.9,0.4,0.2,0.1 0.2, 0.4, 0.7, 0.3, 0.1, 0.0 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0
0.0,0.1,0.3,0.9,0.4,0.2 0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3,0.1 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.2, 0.0
0.0, 0.0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.9, 0.4 0.0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3 0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6,0.2
0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.3,0.9 0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7 0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6
0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.3 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 0.0,0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4
T2 (low) T2 (medium) T2 (high)
0.4,0.7,0.4,0.2,0.1,0.0 0.3,0.9,0.3,0.1,0.0,0.0 0.4, 0.6, 0.3, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
0.1,0.4,0.7,0.4,0.2,0.1 0.2,0.3,0.9,0.3,0.1,0.0 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.3, 0.0, 0.0
0.0,0.1,0.4,0.7,0.4,0.2 0.1,0.2,0.3,0.9,0.3,0.1 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.3, 0.0
0.0,0.0,0.1,0.4,0.7,0.4 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.9, 0.3 0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6,0.4
0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.4,0.7 0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.9 0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.6
0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.4 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3 0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4
T3 (low) T3 (medium) T3 (high)
0.6,0.5,0.4,0.3,0.1,0.0 0.4,0.7,0.3,0.1,0.0,0.0 0.5, 0.6, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
0.1,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.3,0.1 0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3,0.1,0.0 0.3,0.5,0.6,0.2,0.0,0.0
0.0,0.1,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.3 0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3,0.1 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6, 0.2, 0.0
0.0,0.0,0.1,0.6,0.5,0.4 0.0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3 0.1,0.2,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.2
0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.1,0.6, 0.5 0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7 0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.5,0.6
0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0,1, 0.6 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.4 0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.5
T4 (low) T4 (medium) T4 (high)
0.3,0.9,0.4,0.1,0,0,0.0 0.4,0.7,0.3,0.1,0.0,0.0 0.4, 0.5, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
0.1,0.3,0.9,0.4,0.1,0.0 0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3,0.1,0.0 0.3,0.4,0.5,0.2,0.0,0.0
0.0,0.1,0.3,0.9,0.4,0.1 0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3,0.1 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.2, 0.0
0.0,0.0,0.1,0.3,0.9,0.4 0.0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7,0.3 0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.2
0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.3,0.9 0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7 0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5
0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.1,0.3 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.1,0.2, 0.4 0.0,0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4

Note: The problem is solved via the hybrid dynamic programming-branch and bound algorithm whose flowchart is
provided in the cited reference. The optimum solution is 0, 75 and the associated policy for this region is [0,1, 2, 0,1] or
[none, low, medium, low]. In other words, the recommendation is not to invest in control strategies 1 and 3, to make low
investments on strategies 2 and 4, and then medium or moderate investment on the 4th strategy.

Table 5

Stage, Constraint, Goal, Decision, State:X(1),X(2) .... ,X(I)

0 0.4383 0.130 0.350 0.570 0.780 0.950 0.690

1 0.8000 0.6000 1 0.400 0.570 0.780 0.900 0.690 0.300
2 0.8900 0.7433 2 0.570 0.780 0.900 0.690 0.300 0.300
4 0.7500 0.8483 1 0.780 0.900 0.690 0.300 0.300 0.300

[Optimal solution]0.7500 = [constraint]O.7500][goal] 0.8483

[14] R.R. Yager a n d L.A. Zadeh, Eds., An Introduction to Fuzzy
Logic Applications in Intelligent Systems (Kluwer Aca-
demic, Boston, 1992).
[15] H.J. Z i m m e r m a n n , M e t h o d s a n d applications of fuzzy
m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o g r a m m i n g , in: R.R. Yager and L.A.
Zadeh, Eds., An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic Applications
in Intelligent Systems (Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1992)
97-120.
[16] H.J. Z i m m e r m a n n , Fuzzy Sets and its Applications,
(Kluwer Academic, Boston, 2nd edn., 1992).