Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

An integrated multi-objective optimisation and fuzzy

multi-attributive group decision-making technique for
subdivision arrangement of Ro–Ro vessels
A.İ. Ölçer *, C. Tuzcu, O. Turan
The Ship Stability Research Centre, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,
Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, 100 Montrose Street, Henry Dyer Building, Glasgow G4 0LZ, Scotland, UK
Received 6 November 2003; received in revised form 7 December 2004; accepted 18 January 2005

Abstract

This paper focuses on developing a new multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology for subdivision
arrangement of Ro–Ro vessels, which integrates the multi-objective optimisation with a fuzzy multi-attributive group
decision-making (FMAGDM) technique. The study concentrates on the task of finding and then evaluating (or ranking) the
finite number of pareto-optimal design alternatives (PODAs). A genetic algorithm based multi-objective optimisation technique,
namely MOGA, is employed for optimisation purpose in terms of chosen design parameters such as damage stability,
survivability, and cargo capacity. MOGA is the methodology where the solution space is searched for a set of PODAs, from
which experts can express their opinions and choose the best PODA. The subjectiveness and imprecision of the ranking process
is modelled as linear trapezoidal fuzzy numbers by means of linguistic terms. An attribute based aggregation technique for
homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of experts is employed and used for dealing with the fuzzy opinion aggregation.
Finally, a real case study on the subdivision arrangement of a Ro–Ro vessel is conducted to illustrate the effectiveness of the
approach.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multi-objective optimisation; Genetic algorithms; Pareto-optimal designs; Fuzzy sets; Group decision-making; Aggregation;
Consensus

1. Introduction designs, knowing that, nearly all types of ships are

Naval architects or ship designers face the problem
of providing an adequate level of safety for their
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 5484047;
fax: +44 141 5484784.
E-mail address: olcer@na-me.ac.uk (A.İ. Ölçer).
subject to the risk of sinking or capsizing if they lose
their watertight integrity, whether by collision,
grounding or an internal accident such as fire or
explosion. To this end the most effective protection is
provided by means of the internal subdivision
arrangement of the vessel. It is intuitive that the
subdivision is a safeguard for any possible damage

1568-4946/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2005.01.004
222 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
that may breach the watertight integrity of the hull.
Even though the ship might lose her sailing functions
as a result of an accident, she should remain floating in
reasonably high sea states and should continue to
accommodate safely the people on board, as well as
preventing the leakage of environmentally hazardous
substances into the sea.
There is an increasing awareness of the safety
aspect as well as a developing will to implement the
procedures by which the safety aspect can be assessed
and be implemented at the earliest possible design
stages. The study presented in this paper sets out a
good example for this as the internal subdivision
arrangement is directly linked with damage stability
and survivability performance of the ships.
There are a few empirical studies concerning
subdivision arrangement of a vessel. Sen and Gerigk
[1] dealt with some aspects of a knowledge-based
system for intelligent arrangement of internal spaces
for ship safety at the preliminary stage of design. Ölçer
et al. [2] studied the subdivision arrangement problem
and evaluated PODAs in a totally crisp environment
where all the parameters are deterministic. Turan et al.
[3] presented a case based reasoning approach for
internal subdivision problem of a ROPAX vessel.
In this study, internal subdivision arrangement of
Ro–Ro vessels is considered as an MCDM problem in
which PODAs are conducted by using a Genetic
Algorithms (GAs) based multi-objective optimisation
technique and ranking of PODAs is evaluated in an
FMAGDM environment where available information
is imprecise and multiple experts are involved.
In reality, the internal hull subdivision arrangement
of Ro–Ro vessels entails the achievement of several
different objectives, which are often conflicting and
non-commensurable, such as improving survivability
and increasing cargo capacity. This makes the subdivi-
sion arrangement process suitable for optimisation by
using multi-objective methods, which yield a family of
non-dominated solutions (also named non-inferior or
admissible) called pareto-optimal set. The concept of
non-dominance refers to the solutions for which no
objective can be improved without worsening at least
one of the other objectives. Thus, the non-dominated
solutions are superior to the others with respect to all
objectives, but comparatively good among themselves.
In dealing with multi-objective optimisation
problems, classical optimisation methods are not
capable of finding the global optima when the search
space has local extremes. In addition, as they can just
locate a single optimum, several runs are required to
generate the set of PODAs. On the contrary, recent
studies on optimisation techniques based on genetic
and evolutionary algorithms have shown that these
methods can be used efficiently to eliminate most of
the difficulties of classical methods because of their
flexibility, ease of operation, minimal requirements
and global perspective [4]. The detailed recent reviews
on multi-objective optimisation using many evolu-
tionary algorithms can be found in [5,6].
All solutions lying on the pareto-optimal set are
potentially preferred by the ship designers and the
choice of one solution over the other entails additional
knowledge of the problem such as designer prefer-
ences. These preferences may be elicited a priori,
interactively or a posteriori. Multiple attribute
decision-making (MADM) techniques, which are to
determine the best design alternative with the highest
degree of desirability with respect to all relevant
attributes, are usually required in posterior evaluation
of PODAs to choose one of them for implementation.
The classical (or crisp) MADM techniques assume
all performance ratings are crisp numbers. However,
these ratings might involve subjectiveness, impreci-
sion and vagueness. For example, they can be
linguistic terms such as good, medium, fair, etc. or
verbal assessments such as ‘‘the sixth PODA is much
better than the eleventh PODA’’. Moreover, in order to
find the best compromise PODA amongst competing
attributes of the subdivision arrangement problem of
Ro–Ro vessels, involvement of multiple experts and
their subjective opinions are also required. They often
cannot have a consensus with respect to an attribute
due to different preferences and their opinions usually
conflict.
Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making
(FMADM) methods have been developed due to the
lack of precision in assessing the performance ratings
of alternatives with respect to an attribute. A large
number of articles on the decision-making analysis
have addressed the FMADM methods [7–11]. Ölçer
and Odabasi [11] reviewed and analysed the most of
the known FMADM methods according to their group
decision-making ability and introduced a new
FMADM method, which allows the involvement of
multiple experts.
 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
This paper proposes a new MCDM methodology
(see Fig. 1) to take into account the above-mentioned
considerations for the subdivision arrangement of Ro–
Ro vessels and is organised as follows: The subsequent
section outlines the general features of the pareto-
optimal concept and formulation of the FMAGDM
problem, and then Section 3 presents a new MCDM
approach, which consists of multi-objective optimisa-
tion and ranking of PODAs stages. The paper
continues with an illustrative example, which demon-
strates the application of the new MCDM approach on
the subdivision arrangement of a Ro–Ro vessel.
Finally, the last section details the conclusions and a
summary of the characteristics of the proposed
system.
2. Problem formulation and pareto-optimal
concept
A general multi-objective optimisation problem
(also called multiple criteria optimisation or vector
optimisation) is to find the designvariables that optimise
a vector objective function ( F(Y) = { f 1, . . ., f t}) over
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the proposed methodology.
223
the feasible design space. The objective functions are the
quantities that the designer wishes to minimise,
maximise, or attain a certain value. This problem can
be formulated as follows:
Minimise : FðYÞ ¼ f f1 ðYÞ; f 2ðYÞ; . . . ; ft ðYÞg
Subject to : p inequality constraints
(1)
gd ðyÞ
0; d ¼ 1; . . . ; p
q equality constraints hf ðyÞ ¼ 0; f ¼ 1; . . . ; q
(2)
where Y = [ y1, y2, . . ., yn] is the vector of decision
variables. In other words, we wish to determine the
particular set y1 ; y2 ; . . . ; yn , which yields the optimum
values of all the objective functions among the set of
all points that satisfy Eqs. (1) and (2).
The most common method of handling multiple
objectives, with or without employing evolutionary
algorithms, is to aggregate the multiple objectives and
evaluate the performance based on a single fitness
function. In single objective optimisation, optimality
can be defined when a solution is able to give the best
(highest or lowest) fitness value achieved so far.
224 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
However in solving multi-objective problems, we are
interested in obtaining a set of pareto-optimal solution
points rather than a single solution point.
For a multi-objective optimisation problem, any
two solutions y1 and y2 can have one of two
possibilities: one dominates the other or none
dominates the other. In a minimisation problem,
without loss of generality, a solution y1 dominates y2
if the following two conditions are satisfied:
8 g 2 f1; 2; . . . ; tg : fg ðy1 Þ  fg ðy2 Þ
1 2
9 l 2 f1; 2; . . . ; tg : fl ðy Þ < fl ðy Þ (4)
If any of the above conditions is violated, the solution
y1 does not dominate the solution y2. If y1 dominates
the solution y2, y1 is called the non-dominated solu-
tion. The solutions that are non-dominated within the
entire search space are denoted as pareto-optimal and
constitute the pareto-optimal set or pareto-optimal
frontier.
Multiple attribute decision analysis of PODAs
starts with the generation of the attributes. Determina-
tion of the attributes is critically important to the final
ranking and thus should be done very carefully and the
attributes should be complete and exhaustive, contain
mutually exclusive items.
There are basically two types of attributes for a
ranking problem, namely ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’
attributes. The main assumption of this research is that
if an assessment for an alternative with respect to an
attribute is crisp, this kind of attribute is called an
‘‘objective attribute’’. Such ratings, which are usually
provided by suppliers and manufacturers, do not
change from one expert to the other. When experts’
opinions for an alternative with respect to an attribute
are fuzzy assessments, which can be different or
identical, then this attribute is called ‘‘subjective
attribute’’.
Subjective and objective attributes can also be
divided into two classes. The first class is of ‘cost’ (or
‘input’) nature (the larger, the less preference). The
second class is of ‘benefit’ (or ‘output’) nature (the
larger, the more preference), Parkan and Wu [12].
The general FMAGDM model in which PODAs are
evaluated is described as follows:
(3)
The main aim of FMAGDM techniques is to deal
with imprecise information and weighted multiple
experts’ fuzzy opinions, which are expressed for
subjective attributes of the ranking problem. Let
X = {X jj j = 1, . . ., N} be a finite set of alternatives
(courses of action, candidates, scenarios, strategies),
A = {Aiji = 1, . . ., K} be a finite set of attributes
according to which the desirability of an alternative is
to be judged and E = {Ekjk = 1, . . ., M} be a finite set
of experts. And let R = {(Rij)kji = 1, . . ., K; j = 1, . . .,
N; k = 1, . . ., M} be the K  N decision matrix, where
Rij is the performance rating of alternative X j with
respect to attribute Ai. An FMAGDM problem can be
expressed in a matrix format for each expert as
follows:
The weighting vectors w (for the attributes) and
we (for the experts) are given directly by the
moderator (or manager) and are represented as
w = {wi ji = 1, . . ., K} and we = {wekjk = 1, . . ., M}.
Given the decision matrices and the weighting
vectors, the main aim of the FMAGDM problem is
to rank PODAs by using a stepwise ranking
procedure to determine an overall PODA perfor-
mance score with respect to all attributes.
 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
3. An integrated multi-objective optimisation and
FMAGDM technique
An integrated multi-objective optimisation and
FMAGDM technique is proposed for the subdivision
arrangement of Ro–Ro vessels. The working proce-
dure of the proposed methodology is given in Fig. 1.
The proposed method has the following two major
stages. In the first stage, a multi-objective optimisation
model is used as a means to determine the PODAs; in
the second stage, an FMAGDM methodology is
utilised to rank the PODAs according to both
predetermined objective and subjective attributes.
3.1. Multi-objective optimisation stage
In this stage, multi-objective design optimisation
software, namely FRONTIER [13], is used. The
FRONTIER software uses GAs to carry out a multi-
objective search. GAs were first pioneered by Holland
[14] and since then have been widely studied,
experimented with and applied in many fields of the
engineering world. GAs are evolutionary optimisation
approaches, which simulate a natural evolution
process based on the Darwinian theory, in which
the fittest species survive and propagate while the less
successful ones tend to disappear. They are most
appropriate for complex non-linear models where the
location of the global optimum is a difficult task. GAs
also differ from many other optimisation methods in
the sense that they only use the objective function, not
derivatives, to identify possible solutions.
The multi-objective search method used in FRON-
TIER is an enhanced version of the simple GAs, called
the Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA)
[15,16]. The MOGA randomly generates a population
of individuals. Each individual represents one possible
design. The individuals can be assessed on several
criteria, which can be specified based on the problem
objectives. These criteria are maintained separately at
all times, allowing simultaneous optimisation of all
criteria during the search. However, instead of finding
a single anear-optimal solution, the MOGA finds a set
of solutions, which define the trade-off surface
between these search criteria. The system works by
initially generating a random set of solutions and
evaluating them on all criteria. The solutions are
arranged on a grid. Crossover then occurs between
225
solutions, which are close to each other on the grid.
The idea of crossover is that two designs (parents) can
be combined together to form another two solutions
(children), which are better than their parents. If this is
the case the children usually replace the parents but
not always. As the search progresses from generation
to generation the population slowly converges towards
the trade-off surface or pareto-optimal frontier. The
output from the MOGA optimiser is thus a set of non-
dominated solutions (or a set of PODAs) [15].
3.2. Fuzzy multi-attributive group decision-making
stage
This stage uses a new methodology, which was
developed by Ölçer [17]. The main reason of
employing this method is its ability of overcoming
the problems mentioned in Section 1 of this article. It
allows designers to express their fuzzy opinions for the
PODAs with respect to each subjective attribute.
These opinions are then aggregated with respect to
each subjective attribute by taking into account
attribute based expert weights. Finally the PODAs
are ranked according to their overall aggregated
performance ratings. This stage consists of the
following three major phases:
3.2.1. Rating phase
In this phase, in order to establish the decision
matrix for each expert, experts express their opinions
(or performance ratings) for each PODA with respect
to each subjective attribute. This can be carried out by
questionnaires, which are used for soliciting expert
opinions for each alternative with respect to each
subjective attribute. Because these ratings are gen-
erally in fuzzy data form, fuzzy numbers can model
better this kind of qualitative data. This phase aims to
convert fuzzy data into standardised positive trape-
zoidal fuzzy numbers.
If the decision matrix of the problem contains fuzzy
data, which may be expressed in linguistic terms, these
terms must first be transformed into fuzzy numbers by
using the appropriate conversion scale. The linguistic
set S, S = {None, Very Poor (VP), Between Very Poor
and Poor (P-VP), Poor (P), Fairly Poor (Fa.P), More or
Less Poor (Mo.P), Medium, More or Less Good
(Mo.G), Fairly Good (Fa.G), Good (G), Between
Good and Very Good (G-VG), Very Good (VG),
226 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
Excellent}, is used to systematically convert linguistic
terms to their corresponding fuzzy numbers. The
linguistic terms used in this conversion scale, their
corresponding representations of fuzzy numbers and
membership functions are given in Table 1. Engineers
and ship designers can employ this conversion system
because it is simple enough to be understood by the
decision maker, and easy to use.
The concept of linguistic variable is very useful in
dealing with situations, which are too complex or too
ill defined to be reasonably described in conventional
quantitative expressions [18,19]. A linguistic variable
is a variable whose values are not numbers but words
or sentences in a natural or artificial language [20].
If the decision matrix contains non-standardised
fuzzy numbers, which may be expressed in such
phrases as ‘‘approximately equal to 11’’, they must be
converted to standardised fuzzy numbers.
Experts’ fuzzy opinions are represented as trape-
zoidal fuzzy numbers. The reason of using trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers is that they are intuitively easy for
decision makers to use. However, the method is
independent of the type of membership functions
being used. Some other membership functions, for
example triangular membership functions, are also
applicable.
Let U be the universe of discourse, U = [0, m]. A
trapezoidal fuzzy number can be defined by a
quadruplet A = (a1, a2, a3, a4). The membership
function is
8 expert. Because the aggregation is based on each
>
> ðx  a1 Þ=ða2  a1 Þ for a1 < x  a2
< subjective attribute, expert weighting is determined
1 for a2  x  a3
mA ðxÞ ¼
>
> ða  xÞ=ða  a Þ for a3  x < a4
: 4 4 3
0 otherwise
with a1 < a2  a3 < a4 bearing in mind that if a2 = a3,
A is a triangular fuzzy number. The x in interval [a2,
a3] gives the maximal grade of mA(x), i.e. mA(x) = 1; it
is the most probable value of the evaluation data. a1
and a4 are the lower and upper bounds of the available
area for the evaluation data, which are used to reflect
the fuzziness of the evaluation data.
Assume that each expert Ek (k = 1, 2, . . ., M)
constructs a positive trapezoidal fuzzy number
Rk = (ak, bk, ck, dk) to represent the performance
rating for an alternative with respect to a subjective
attribute, where 0  ak < bk  ck < dk  m. Each
trapezoidal fuzzy number Rk = (ak, bk, ck, dk) given
by expert Ek is translated into standardised trapezoidal
fuzzy number Rk (k = 1, 2, . . ., M), where


 ak bk c k dk
Rk ¼ ; ; ; ¼ ðak ; bk ; ck ; dk Þ (5)
m m m m
and 0  ak < bk  ck < dk  1. Where m is the max-
imum value of non-standardised trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers given by experts for the same attribute.
3.2.2. Attribute based aggregation phase
In the second phase, an attribute based aggregation
method for homogeneous and heterogeneous (homo/
heterogeneous) groups of experts under each sub-
jective attribute is employed. Sometimes, one may
admit that the various experts are not equally
important (or reliable). In such a case, it is called
heterogeneous (non-homogeneous) group of experts’
problem and, otherwise, homogeneous group of
experts’ problem is considered.
When more than one expert is involved in the
selection problems, each expert might have a different
weight. For instance, an expert, who is very
experienced in ship design, may not give as good
an assessment of operational aspects as ship design
aspects. Therefore, attribute based expert weighting is
a necessity and a good method of aggregating multiple
expert opinions must consider the degree of impor-
tance of each expert in the aggregation procedure. One
way of modelling this aspect is to consider the
existence of a moderator who assigns a weight to each
separately for each subjective attribute. This yields
more accurate and reliable decision-making models.
The purpose of this phase is to establish an
algorithm to combine homo/heterogeneous groups of
experts’ opinions to form a group consensus opinion.
After the weights of attributes and the degree of
importance of experts are assigned, under each
subjective attribute all performance ratings are
aggregated for each alternative.
In this phase of the proposed approach, the method
presented in [11,17] is used for dealing with fuzzy
opinion aggregation for homo/heterogeneous groups
of experts. The main advantage of using this method is
that the method doesn’t require experts’ assessments
to have a common intersection at a-level cuts, where
a 2 (0,1] [21].
Table 1
Linguistic terms and their corresponding fuzzy numbers and membership functions used in the proposed approach

A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

227
228 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

Assume that the degree of importance of expert Ek (b) Construct the agreement matrix (AM), after all the
PM 1, 2, . . ., M) is wek, where wek 2 [0,1] and
(k = agreement (or similarity) degrees between experts
k¼1 wek ¼ 1. are measured,
In some cases, the relative importance of experts is 2 3
1 S12 . . . S1v . . . S1M
widely different for each attribute of the problem. 6 ... ...
6 ... ... 77
Therefore, the relative importance and weight of each
AM ¼ 6 6 S u1 S u2 . . . S uv . . . S 7
uM 7
expert is considered. First, the most important person 4 ... ... ... ... 5
is selected among experts and weight one is assigned
SM1 SM2 . . . SMv . . . 1
to him/her, that is, rek = 1. Then the lth expert is
compared with the most important person and a where Suv = S(Ru, Rv ), if u 6¼ v and Suv = 1, if
relative weight for the lth expert rel, l = 1, 2, . . ., M, is u = v. By the definition of S(Ru, Rv ), the diagonal
obtained. So we have max {re1, re2, . . ., reM} = 1 and elements of AM are unity.
min {re1, re2, . . ., reM} > 0. Finally, the degree of (c) Calculate the average degree of agreement
importance wek is defined as: AA(Eu) of expert Eu (u = 1, 2, . . ., M) by using
the AM of the problem, where
rek
wek ¼ PM (6)
1 XM
k¼1 rek AAðEu Þ ¼ SðRu ; Rv Þ (8)
If the importance of each expert is equal, then M  1 v¼1;v 6¼ u
we1 = we2 = . . . = weM = 1/M.
(d) Calculate the relative degree of agreement RA(Eu)
The aggregation algorithm for homo/heteroge-
of expert Eu (u = 1, 2, . . ., M), where
neous groups of experts is presented as follows:
AAðEu Þ
RAðEu Þ ¼ PM : (9)
(a) Calculate the degree of agreement (or degree of
u¼1 AAðEu Þ
similarity) Suv (Ru, Rv ) of the opinions between
each pair of experts Eu and Ev , where Suv (Ru, (e) Calculate the consensus degree coefficient
Rv ) 2 [0,1], 1  u  M, 1  v  M, and u 6¼ v. CC(Eu) of expert Eu (u = 1, 2, . . ., M), where
A method introduced by Chen and Lin [22] is CCðEu Þ ¼ bweu þ ð1  bÞRAðEu Þ (10)
used for measuring the degree of similarity
where b (0  b  1) is a relaxation factor of the
between trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. According
proposed method. It shows the importance of the
to this approach, let A and B be two standardised
weu over RA(Eu). When b = 0, a homogeneous
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers,
group of experts problem is considered. The
A ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 Þ and B ¼ ðb1 ; b2 ; b3 ; b4 Þ consensus degree coefficient of each expert is a
where 0  a1  a2  a3  a4  1 and 0  b1  good measure for evaluating the relative worthi-
b2  b3 b4  1. Then the degree of similarity ness of each expert’s opinions.
between the standardised trapezoidal fuzzy (f) Finally, the aggregation result of the fuzzy
numbers A and B can be measured by the opinions is RAG as
similarity function S, RAG ¼
ja1  b1 j þ ja2  b2 j þ ja3  b3 j CCðE1 ÞR1 CCðE2 ÞR2     CCðEM ÞRM ;
þ ja4  b4 j (11)
SðA; BÞ ¼ 1 
4
where operators  and  are the fuzzy multi-
(7)
plication operator and the fuzzy addition operator,
where S(A, B) 2 [0,1]. Larger the value of S(A, B), respectively. The fuzzy multiplication and addi-
greater the similarity between the standardised tion of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are also
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers A and B. It should be trapezoidal fuzzy numbers [23]. Some important
noted that S(A, B) = S(B, A). properties (e.g. agreement preservation) and their
 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
proofs of the aggregation method can be found in
[21,24,25].
3.2.3. Selection phase
The selection phase consists of two sub-phases:
defuzzification, and ranking sub-phases. In order to
rank PODAs, all fuzzy elements of the aggregated
decision matrices for homo/heterogeneous groups of
experts are deffuzzified in the deffuzzification sub-
phase so that all components of the aggregated
decision matrix are all crisp numbers and any classical
MADM method can be used. The result of this sub-
phase is a decision matrix, which contains only crisp
(or non-fuzzy) data. Then the PODAs of the problem
are ranked by technique for order preference by
similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method in
ranking sub-phase.
3.2.3.1. Defuzzification sub-phase. This sub-phase
allows fuzzy numbers to be translated to crisp values
early on, so that the arithmetic process of the proposed
approach becomes easy. In this sub-phase, all the
aggregated fuzzy numbers are transformed into
numeric ratings using a fuzzy scoring approach [9]
as explained below. The reason of using this method is
that it is intuitive and easy to implement. The result of
this sub-phase is a decision matrix, which contains
only crisp data. According to the fuzzy scoring method
developed in [1], the fuzzy maximising set and
minimising set should be first obtained, which are
defined as:
 According to TOPSIS, the following steps are to be
x; for 0  x  1
mmax ðxÞ ¼ (12)
0; otherwise

1  x; for 0  x  1
mmin ðxÞ ¼ (13)
0; otherwise
Then, the right score of fuzzy number B can be
determined using
mR ðBÞ ¼ sup½mB ðxÞLmmax ðxÞ (14)
x
The left score of B can be determined using
mL ðBÞ ¼ sup½mB ðxÞLmmin ðxÞ (15)
x
Given the left and right scores of B, the total score of B
can be computed using
mR ðBÞ þ 1  mL ðBÞ
mT ðBÞ ¼ (16)
2
229
3.2.3.2. Ranking sub-phase. In this sub-phase, clas-
sical MADM methods can be utilised to determine the
ranking order of the PODAs. The TOPSIS method,
which gives cardinal order of the alternatives, is used
in this study because of its general and broad accept-
ability in many problem domains. Hwang and Yoon
[26] developed the TOPSIS method based on the
intuitive principle that the chosen alternative should
have the shortest distance from the positive-ideal
solution (PIS) and the longest distance from the
negative-ideal solution (NIS).
TOPSIS is quite effective in identifying the best
alternative quickly. The underlying logic premise of
the TOPSIS method is that an alternative, which is
more like an ideal alternative (the best that could be
imagined) and more unlike a negative-ideal alternative
(the worst that could be imagined) should be preferred.
In the TOPSIS method, the ideal alternative is
constructed out of exclusively the best attribute values
attainable and therefore it is usually an invented
alternative. The negative-ideal alternative is also
usually an invented alternative that is constructed
out of exclusively the worst attribute values attainable.
The relative closeness (similarity) of each alternative
to the ideal alternative is rated on the basis of its
distances from both the ideal and the negative-ideal
alternatives simultaneously. Finally, the preference
order of the alternatives is obtained by their rank on a
descending order of those ratings. The computational
procedure of the TOPSIS method is quite straight-
forward.
performed:
(a) Calculate normalised ratings: This step tries to
transform various attribute dimensions into the
non-dimensional attribute, which allows compar-
ison across the attributes. The vector normal-
isation technique is used for computing the
element (r ji) of the normalised decision matrix,
which is given as
x ji
r ji ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PN 2ffi ;
j¼1 x ji (17)
j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; K:
where x ji is the value of alternative j with respect
to attribute i.
230 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

(b) Calculate weighted normalised ratings: A set of (d) Calculate separation measures: Separation (dis-
attribute weights assessed from the decision tance) between alternatives can be measured by
maker is accommodated to the normalised the n-dimensional Euclidean distance. Separation
decision matrix in this step. The weighted of each alternative from the positive-ideal solution
normalised decision matrix can be calculated by is then given by
multiplying each row of the normalised decision vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u K
matrix with its associated attribute weight wi . An uX
element of the weighted normalised decision S j ¼ t ðv ji  vi Þ2 j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N

(22)
i¼1
matrix is calculated as
Similarly, separation from the negative-ideal
v ji ¼ wi r ji ; solution is then given by
(18)
j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; K vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u K
uX
where wi is the weight of the ith attribute. S j ¼ t ðv ji  v

i Þ
2
j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N (23)
There are many methods for assigning attribute i¼1
weights, such as the weighted evaluation techni- (e) Calculate similarities to positive-ideal solution:
que (WET), the eigenvector method, the entropy Relative closeness (or similarity) of A j with
method, and so forth. In the proposed method, respect to A* is defined as
WET is used for finding the attribute weights.
According to WET, the moderator begins by rank Sj
C j ¼ ;
ordering attributes and attribute relative impor- Sj þ Sj (24)
tances are assigned on a 0–100 scale. The attribute
perceived as most important is assigned a weight 0 < Cj < 1; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N
of 100; all other attribute relative importances When C j
is close to 1, the alternative is regarded
are assigned relative to that. The final step of the as ideal; and when Cj is close to 0, the alternative
weighting procedure is to normalise the relative is regarded as non-ideal.
importances {r1, r2, . . ., rK}, to obtain the (f) Rank preference order: Choose an alternative
weights {w1 , w2 , . . ., wK }. The standard normal- with the maximum C j or rank alternatives
isation is according to C j in descending order. It is clear
ri that an alternative A j is closer to A* than to A as
wi ¼ PK ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; K; (19)
C j approaches 1.
i¼1 ri
P
where 0  wi  1 and K i¼1 wi ¼ 1. The following steps required by the proposed appr-
(c) Identify positive-ideal and negative-ideal solu- oach are given to facilitate the presentation of the case
tions: Let the positive-ideal solution, A*, and the study in Section 4.
negative-ideal solution, A, be defined in terms of
the weighted normalised values: Step 1. Constitute optimisation parameters and

A ¼ fv1 ; v2 ; . . . ; vi ; . . . ; vK g constraints.
Step 2. Employ MOGA to generate the feasible
where
design space in multi-objective optimisa-
vi ¼ fmax v ji ; i 2 J1 ; min v ji ; i 2 J2 g (20) tion environment.
j j

A ¼ fv1 ; v2 ; . . . ; vi ; . . . ; v
   Step 3. Carry out design filtering and select
K g;
PODAs using the conditions for domina-
where tion given in Eqs. (3) and (4).
v Step 4. Form a committee of experts (or decision
i ¼ fmin v ji ; i 2 J1 ; max v ji ; i 2 J2 g (21)
j j makers), then identify the selection attri-
where J1 is the set of benefit attributes and J2 is the butes with types (cost or benefit) of them
set of cost attributes. and list all possible PODAs.
 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243 231

Step 5. Collect each expert opinion for each PODA
with respect to a subjective attribute and
establish a decision matrix for each expert.
Step 6. Transform the fuzzy data (linguistic
expressions or fuzzy assessments) into
standardised positive trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers attribute by attribute by using
Eq. (5).
Step 7. Assign the relative importance of experts
and attributes, and then calculate the
weights of them by using Eqs. (6) and
(19) respectively.
Step 8. Under each subjective attribute, aggregate
all experts’ fuzzy opinions for each PODA
by using the Eqs. (7)–(10), and (11). This
step gives us aggregated matrices for
homo/heterogeneous groups of experts.
Step 9. Deffuzzify these matrices by applying
Eqs. (12)–(15), and (16) on every fuzzy
number in question. Up to this point, the
aggregated decision matrices with fuzzy
elements have been transformed into ones
with crisp numbers.
Step 10. Construct the normalised ratings, and
weighted normalised ratings of the deffuz-
zified matrices by using Eqs. (17) and (18).
Step 11. Calculate positive-ideal and negative-ideal
solutions, separation measures, and simila-
rities of each PODA by using Eqs. (20)–
(23), and (24).
Step 12. Order or rank the PODAs according to the
Overall Alternative Ranking (OAR) values
(or Cj values) and select the PODA with
the maximum OAR value as the best
PODA.
4. Case study
The proposed approach outlined in Section 3 is
applied to the subdivision arrangement of a Ro–Ro
vessel, in the sense that damaged stability require-
ments are satisfied for better operational flexibility
and more over, survivability performance is im-
proved for the safety consideration and the cargo
capacity is maximised for higher revenue. Car deck

Table 2
Optimisation variables and objectives
No. Variables Type Bounds
Discrete Continuous Lower Upper Increment
1 Car deck height (m) H 9.6 9.9
2 Side-casing width (m) H 1 2 0.5
3 Lower-hold height (from car deck) (m) H 2.6 5.2 2.6
4 Transverse Bulkhead 02 H 25 29 1
5 Transverse Bulkhead 03 H 37 41 1
6 Transverse Bulkhead 04 H 49 53 1
7 Transverse Bulkhead 05 H 61 65 1
8 Transverse Bulkhead 06 H 79 83 1
9 Transverse Bulkhead 07 H 97 101 1
10 Transverse Bulkhead 08 H 115 119 1
11 Transverse Bulkhead 09 H 127 131 1
12 Transverse Bulkhead 10 H 139 143 1
13 Transverse Bulkhead 11 H 151 155 1
14 Transverse Bulkhead 12 H 163 167 1
15 Transverse Bulkhead 13 H 175 179 1
16 Transverse Bulkhead 14 H 187 191 1

No. Objectives Type Description

Bounds for transverse bulkheads are given in frame numbers
1 HS value Maximisation For the worst two compartment damage case
2 KG limiting value Maximisation For the worst two compartment damage case
3 Cargo capacity value Maximisation Expressed in car lanes
232 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
height, lower-hold height, side-casing width, and
layout of the watertight subdivision, which are
critical for the above considerations, are chosen as
optimisation parameters. These optimisation vari-
ables, which are all discrete types of variables except
for car deck height, and the objectives of the case
study are given in Table 2. In this Table, increment
values assigned for the discrete type of variables are
introduced to describe a set of discrete intervals for
the decision maker to take in the optimisation
process.
The tragic accidents of the Herald of Free Enterprise
in 1987 and the Estonia in 1994 initiated a significant
surge of research related to the capsizing of Ro–Ro type
ships. This effort culminated in significant develop-
ments that helped the ferry industry to raise safety
levels to demanding new heights cost-effectively, in
response to strict new regulations. These regulations
require all Ro–Ro vessels to comply with SOLAS’90
standards, as well as with new water on deck standards
known as the Stockholm Agreement IMO [27], which
determines the limiting significant wave height (HS) at
which a Ro–Ro vessel survives in a damaged condition.
Therefore the main aim of this case study is to
maximise the survivability and damaged stability
standards as well as to improve the cargo capacity.
Fig. 2. Evolution of the KG limiting value.
The Stockholm Agreement can be complied with
either by prescriptive water on deck calculations or via
model tests to determine the survivability of a damaged
ship in a given sea-state. For this study, with respect to
survivability performance the Static Equivalent Method
(SEM) is utilised to determine HS value for the worst
SOLAS’90 damage determined from damage stability
calculations. The SEM (Vassalos [28]) is an empirical
capsize model for Ro–Ro ships that can predict with
reasonable accuracy the limiting sea-state for specific
damage conditions. The SEM for Ro–Ro ships
postulates that the ship capsizes quasi-statistically, as
a result of an accumulation of a critical mass of water on
the vehicle deck or on the weather deck, the height of
whichabove themeanseasurfaceuniquelycharacterises
the ability of the ship to survive in a given critical sea
state. This method was developed following observa-
tions of the behaviour of damage ship models in waves
and it was validated using several model experiments
and a large number of numerical simulations.
4.1. Multi-objective optimisation stage calculations
(Steps 1, 2, and 3)
After the optimisation problem has been estab-
lished, the optimisation work was modelled in the
 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243 233

Fig. 3. Evolution of the HS value.

FRONTIER software environment. Firstly a para- experiment (or design layout) with respect to each
metric and topological Ro–Ro vessel definition was optimisation parameter. For each design experiment,
created in NAPA [29] (Naval Architectural Software) the relevant adjustments of KG, Draught and
so that the vessel can be modified for each design Displacement have been made during the optimisation

Fig. 4. Evolution of the Cargo capacity.

234 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
Fig. 5. Decision hierarchy of multiple attribute evaluation for PODAs.
process. In addition to these, a computer program
written in C++ has performed bulkhead distribution.
All the SEM calculations as well as SOLAS’90
calculations were carried out using NAPA.
Since the problem has three objectives to max-
imise, a multi-objective optimiser was selected with
50 generations. Directional crossover probability was
0.5, selection probability was 0.05, and mutation
probability was 0.1 for the last run, which took
approximately 7 h in a PC (Pentium IV, 1.4 GHz)
environment. At the end of this run, 1269 different
designs were obtained in design space with 543 of
them being unfeasible designs, which do not comply
with optimisation constraints. Firstly, all 726
(=1269  543) feasible designs were filtered in design
space to obtain only designs that belong to a pareto-
optimal set. This filter marked 78 different good
designs and 6 PODAs. While filtering, convergence
figures of the objectives and other scatter plot
diagrams of the optimisation parameters were taken
into account (see Figs. 2–4).
After 6 PODAs out of 78 good designs were
specified using the conditions for domination given in
Eqs. (3) and (4), the next step was to rank them and to
select the best design. To achieve this, attributes of the
problem were articulated and then a new FMAGDM
method was employed to find the ranking of the
PODAs.
The selection decision is made on the basis of three
objective and three subjective attributes, which are all
benefit type of attributes. These attributes, which are
all mutually exclusive and critical for the selection of
best PODA, are the following: A1: Cargo capacity, A2:
HS value, A3: KG limiting value, A4: producibility, A5:
ease of maintenance and repair, and A6: loading/
unloading efficiency of arrangement. It should be
noted that subjective attributes have been introduced
in this stage in order to be able to incorporate
designers’ fuzzy preferences for the PODAs. The
hierarchical structure showing the overall objective,
the attributes and alternatives is shown in Fig. 5.
4.2. Rating phase calculations (Steps 4, 5, and 6)
The PODAs of the case study are evaluated by a
group of experts (production engineer (E1), designer
(E2), and operator (E3)) with respect to three
subjective attributes as shown in Table 3. Experts’
linguistic assessments for the attributes A4, A5 and A6
are transformed into fuzzy numbers by using the scale
Table 3
Experts’ evaluations of six PODAs under the three subjective attributes and their corresponding fuzzy numbers
X1 X2 X3
E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3

A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

A4 Expert opinions Very Good Excellent Good–Very Good Very Good Excellent Good–Very Good Fairly Good Fairly Good More or Less Good
Corresponding (0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1) (0.9, 1, 1, 1) (0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1) (0.9, 1, 1, 1) (0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6)
fuzzy numbers

A5 Expert opinions Good Very Good Fairly Good Good Very Good Fairly Good Fairly Good Good More or Less Good
Corresponding (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6)
fuzzy numbers

A6 Expert opinions Fairly Good Fairly Good Good Fairly Good Fairly Good Good Good Good–Very Good Fairly Good
Corresponding (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7)
fuzzy numbers

X4 X5 X6
E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3
A4 Expert opinions Fairly Good Fairly Good More or Less Good More or Less Good More or Less Good Medium Medium More or Less Poor Fairly Poor
Corresponding (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 0.7) (0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 0.7) (0.4, 0.45, 0.45, 0.5) (0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5)
fuzzy numbers

A5 Expert opinions Fairly Good Good More or Less Good More or Less Good More or Less Good More or Less Good Medium More or Less Poor Poor
Corresponding (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 0.7) (0.4, 0.45, 0.45, 0.5) (0.1, 0.3, 0.3, 0.5)
fuzzy numbers

A6 Expert opinions Good Good Fairly Good More or Less Good Fairly Poor More or Less Poor More or Less Good Fairly Poor Fairly Poor
Corresponding (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5) (0.4, 0.45, 0.45, 0.5) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5)
fuzzy numbers

235
236 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

Table 4
Attributes’ properties and weights of attributes and experts
Attributes Type of Type of attribute Relative w E1 E2 E3
assessment importance R.I. we1 R.I. we2 R.I. we3
A1 (the most important) Crisp Benefit Objective 100 0.22
A2 (the moderate important) Crisp Benefit Objective 75 0.17
A3 (the most important) Crisp Benefit Objective 100 0.22
A4 (the least important) Linguistic Benefit Subjective 50 0.11 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.50 0.2
A5 (the least important) Linguistic Benefit Subjective 50 0.11 0.30 0.15 0.70 0.35 1 0.5
A6 (the moderate important) Linguistic Benefit Subjective 75 0.17 0.40 0.2 0.60 0.3 1 0.5

described in Section 3.2.1. These transformed fuzzy
numbers are also shown in Table 3.
4.3. Attribute based aggregation phase calculations
(Steps 7 and 8)
In this phase, all ratings are aggregated under each
subjective attribute by taking into account the attribute
based expert weights. Before aggregation, it is
necessary to identify the weights of attributes and
experts. Therefore, the relative importance of attributes
and experts are assigned according to importance
observed through interview with moderator. Then
weights for attributes and experts are determined such
that the sum of all weights is 1. The relative importance
and weights of attributes and experts are given in
Table 4. Attributes’ properties such as type of attributes
and type of assessments are also summarised in Table 4.
During thewhole process of the aggregation phase, b,
which indicates the moderator’s dominance on the
problem, is set to 0.4. As an example, detailed
aggregation calculations for the sixth attribute (A6)
aregiven in Table 5. Experts’ opinionsfor the fifth PODA
with respect to the sixth attribute and their aggregation
results for homo/heterogeneous groups of experts are
shown in Fig. 6. Please note that there are 18 (=3
subjective attributes X 6 PODAs) aggregation calcula-
tions in this case study. After aggregation calculations,
aggregation matrices for homo/heterogeneous groups of
experts are constructed as shown in Table 6.

Fig. 6. Aggregation of experts’ opinions for the X5 with respect to A6.

Table 5
Aggregation calculations for the sixth attribute (A6)

A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
E1 (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6)
E2 (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5)
E3 (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.7) (0.4, 0.45, 0.45, 0.5) (0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5)

S12 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.850 0.850

S13 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.850
S23 0.900 0.900 0.800 0.900 0.950 1.000

AA(E1) 0.950 0.950 0.900 0.950 0.875 0.850

AA(E2) 0.950 0.950 0.850 0.950 0.900 0.925
AA(E3) 0.900 0.900 0.850 0.900 0.925 0.925

RA(E1) 0.3393 0.3393 0.3462 0.3393 0.3241 0.3148

RA(E2) 0.3393 0.3393 0.3269 0.3393 0.3333 0.3426
RA(E3) 0.3214 0.3214 0.3269 0.3214 0.3426 0.3426

CC(E1) 0.2836 0.2836 0.2877 0.2836 0.2744 0.1889

CC(E2) 0.3236 0.3236 0.3162 0.3236 0.3200 0.2056
CC(E3) 0.3929 0.3929 0.3962 0.3929 0.4056 0.2056

RAGHM (0.500, 0.632, 0.632, 0.764) (0.500, 0.632, 0.632, 0.764) (0.568, 0.702, 0.702, 0.836) (0.500, 0.668, 0.668, 0.836) (0.400, 0.467, 0.467, 0.534) (0.368, 0.451, 0.451, 0.534)
RAGHT (0.500, 0.639, 0.639, 0.779) (0.500, 0.639, 0.639, 0.779) (0.565, 0.693, 0.693, 0.821) (0.500, 0.661, 0.661, 0.821) (0.396, 0.462, 0.462, 0.528) (0.357, 0.443, 0.443, 0.528)

237
 238
Table 6

A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

Aggregated matrices for homo/heterogeneous groups of experts
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
A1 Homo 8 8 10 10 12 14
Hetero 8 8 10 10 12 14

A2 Homo 5.62165 5.25369 5.16295 5.07325 5.05024 5.42632

Hetero 5.62165 5.25369 5.16295 5.07325 5.05024 5.42632

A3 Homo 14.07130 14.13550 14.07720 14.08030 14.06260 13.94820

Hetero 14.07130 14.13550 14.07720 14.08030 14.06260 13.94820

A4 Homo (0.801, 0.901, 0.901, 0.968) (0.801, 0.901, 0.901, 0.968) (0.5, 0.584, 0.584, 0.668) (0.5, 0.584, 0.584, 0.668) (0.435, 0.534, 0.534, 0.633) (0.333, 0.451, 0.451, 0.569)
Hetero (0.808, 0.908, 0.908, 0.973) (0.808, 0.908, 0.908, 0.973) (0.5, 0.586, 0.586, 0.673) (0.5, 0.586, 0.586, 0.673) (0.445, 0.536, 0.536, 0.628) (0.336, 0.455, 0.455, 0.573)

A5 Homo (0.594, 0.729, 0.729, 0.865) (0.594, 0.729, 0.729, 0.865) (0.5, 0.615, 0.615, 0.729) (0.5, 0.615, 0.615, 0.729) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.265, 0.418, 0.418, 0.571)
Hetero (0.598, 0.726, 0.726, 0.853) (0.598, 0.726, 0.726, 0.853) (0.5, 0.613, 0.613, 0.726) (0.5, 0.613, 0.613, 0.726) (0.5, 0.55, 0.55, 0.6) (0.253, 0.404, 0.404, 0.555)

A6 Homo (0.5, 0.632, 0.632, 0.764) (0.5, 0.632, 0.632, 0.764) (0.568, 0.702, 0.702, 0.836) (0.5, 0.668, 0.668, 0.836) (0.4, 0.467, 0.467, 0.534) (0.368, 0.451, 0.451, 0.534)
Hetero (0.5, 0.639, 0.639, 0.779) (0.5, 0.639, 0.639, 0.779) (0.565, 0.693, 0.693, 0.821) (0.5, 0.661, 0.661, 0.821) (0.396, 0.462, 0.462, 0.528) (0.357, 0.443, 0.443, 0.528)
Table 7
Defuzzified aggregated values, (weighted) normalised ratings for homo/heterogeneous groups of experts

A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

239
240 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243

Table 8
Values of separation measures and relative closeness to the positive-ideal solution for homo/heterogeneous groups of experts
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
Homo Hetero Homo Hetero Homo Hetero Homo Hetero Homo Hetero Homo Hetero
Si 0.0516 0.0514 0.0518 0.0516 0.0403 0.0404 0.0407 0.0408 0.0399 0.0398 0.0433 0.0439
Si 0.0399 0.0412 0.0393 0.0407 0.0350 0.0354 0.0320 0.0326 0.0356 0.0359 0.0513 0.0513
Ci(OAR) 0.4362 0.4452 0.4314 0.4405 0.4646 0.4673 0.4403 0.4440 0.4713 0.4737 0.5425 0.5389
Ranking 5 4 6 6 3 3 4 5 2 2 1 1

4.4. Selection phase calculations The positive-ideal solution is determined by taking

(Steps 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Up to this phase, experts’ linguistic assessments
have been transformed into standardised trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers and then aggregated under each
subjective attribute. In order to rank the alternatives,
aggregated matrices’ fuzzy elements should be
defuzzified. Defuzzified aggregated values for
homo/heterogeneous groups of experts are shown in
Table 7.
The TOPSIS procedure is applied to the six PODAs
to obtain their OAR values and ranking orders. First,
the defuzzified aggregated values are normalised.
Table 7 shows the normalised values of each attribute
for homo/heterogeneous groups of experts. Weighted
normalised ratings of each attribute are calculated by
multiplying each attribute with its associated weight:
(w1 ; w2 ; w3 ; w4 ; w5 ; w6 ) = (0.22, 0.17, 0.22, 0.11,
0.11, 0.17). Table 7 also shows the weighted normal-
ised values for homo/heterogeneous groups of experts.
the largest element for each benefit attribute and the
smallest element for each cost attribute. The negative-
ideal solution is just the opposite formation of the PIS.
Positive and negative ideal solutions are also indicated
as superscripts in Table 7 for homo/heterogeneous
groups of experts. Table 8 shows the values of
separation measures and relative closeness to the
positive-ideal solution for homo/heterogeneous
groups of experts.
Finally, PODAs are ranked on the basis of OAR
values. For homogeneous groups of experts, according
to the descending order of OAR, the preference order
is X6 > X5 > X3 > X4 > X1 > X2, where the sixth
alternative is the leader and X5 and X3 are ranked
second and third. Similarly, for heterogeneous group
of experts (for b = 0.4), ranking of alternatives is given
as X6 > X5 > X3 > X1 > X4 > X2.
Properties and performance ratings of the original
and best designs are given in Table 9. It can be
concluded that there has been a significant improve-

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis for b coefficient.

 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243 241

Table 9
Properties and performance ratings of the original and best designs
No. Optimisation variables Original design Best design
1 Car deck height 9.7 m 9.8 m
2 Side-casing width No side-casing 1m
3 Lower-hold height (from car deck) 2.6 m 5.2 m

No. Watertight transverse bulkheads In frame numbers In frame numbers

4 Transverse bulkhead 02 27 26
5 Transverse bulkhead 03 39 41
6 Transverse bulkhead 04 51 52
7 Transverse bulkhead 05 63 65
8 Transverse bulkhead 06 81 83
9 Transverse bulkhead 07 99 97
10 Transverse bulkhead 08 117 115
11 Transverse bulkhead 09 129 128
12 Transverse bulkhead 10 141 140
13 Transverse bulkhead 11 153 151
14 Transverse bulkhead 12 165 164
15 Transverse bulkhead 13 177 178
16 Transverse bulkhead 14 189 190
Performance ratings of designs
1 Cargo capacity 8 8 + (4 more car lanes)
2 HS value 4.641 m 5.42632 m
3 KG limiting value 13.845 m 13.9482 m

ment in terms of performance criteria, particularly in
cargo capacity. According to the latest configuration,
internal hull space arrangement of the Ro–Ro vessel is
improved by increasing lower-hold height and car
deck height and by adding side-casing with 1 m width.
Thus the Ro–Ro vessel has the ability to carry more
cargo by making the above-suggested changes, which
will allow approximately 250 more cars to be carried
in the lower-hold.
It is obvious that the developed methodology is
sensitive to weighting vectors, b coefficient and
experts’ fuzzy assessments of the problem. Therefore,
sensitivity analysis is performed to see the b effect on
the OAR values (see Fig. 7).
5. Conclusions
It is a robust MCDM model, which combines multi-
This paper presents a new MCDM approach,
which is an integrated, interactive and multi-stage
process. It is proposed to investigate the impact of
It enables ship designers to search PODAs over a
POD propulsion systems on the internal hull
subdivision of a Ro–Ro vessel, where considerable
emphasis has been put on evaluation and ranking of
PODAs in a FMAGDM environment. The proposed
approach is suitable and effective in dealing with
experts’ fuzzy opinions in an imprecise environment,
since conventional approaches tend to be less
effective in dealing with fuzziness and vagueness.
Based on the stepwise algorithm given above, various
mathematical and commercial software such as
NAPA, Microsoft Excel and the FRONTIER opti-
misation environment have been integrated to
develop the state of the art tool, which encapsulates
deterministic and performance based safety assess-
ments in a way suitable to perform internal hull
subdivision arrangement of Ro–Ro vessels in the
ship design.
The proposed approach provides satisfactory
conclusions, the important ones of which include:
objective optimisation methodology with a
FMAGDM technique.
feasible design space and to find the best one among
them by the ability of incorporating their weighted
fuzzy (or subjective) preferences.
242 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243
It allows ship designers to deal with the fuzzy
opinions of homo/heterogeneous groups of experts.
It allows FMAGDM problems to take data in the
forms of linguistic terms, fuzzy numbers, and/or
crisp numbers which yields more realistic, accurate
and reliable decision models than the existing ones.
Fuzzy numbers and linguistic variables are used to
quantify the mental perception of the expert.
The ranking algorithm of the proposed approach is
also easily coded into a computer program due to its
stepwise description.
Although the proposed MCDM methodology has
been successfully applied to a Ro–Ro vessel, it is also
applicable to a broader area of MCDM problems in
engineering and operational research as well as in
naval architecture.
Acknowledgements
This multidisciplinary research is a part of FP5 EU-
OPTIPOD project (optimal design and implementa-
tion of azimuthing pods for the safe and efficient
propulsion of ships) and is supported by the following
grant and contract: Project No: GRD1-1999-10294,
Contract No: G3RD-CT-1999-00017.
References
[1] P. Sen, M. Gerigk, Some aspects of a knowledge-based expert
system for preliminary ship subdivision design for safety, in:
International Symposium PRADS’92, vol. 2, 1992, 1187–
1197.
[2] A.I. Ölçer, C. Tuzcu, O. Turan, Internal hull subdivision
optimisation of Ro–Ro vessels in multiple criteria decision
making environment, in: Proceedings of the 8th International
Marine Design Conference, vol. 1, 2003, pp. 339–351.
[3] O. Turan, B. Turkmen, C. Tuzcu, Case-based reasoning
approach to internal hull subdivision design, 4th International
Conference on Advanced Engineering Design, AED 2004,
Glasgow, Scotland, UK, September 2004, pp. 5–8.
[4] V. Oduguwa, A. Tiwari, R. Roy, Evolutionary computing in
manufacturing industry: an overview of recent applications,
Appl. Soft Comput. 5 (2005) 281–299.
[5] K. Deb, Multiobjective Optimization using Evolutionary
Algorithms, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2001.
[6] C.M. Fonseca, P.J. Fleming, Multi-objective optimisation, in:
Handbook of Evolutionary Computation, IOP Publishing Ltd.
and Oxford University Press, 1997.
[7] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy sets, decision-making and expert
systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1987.
[8] L. Mikhailov, P. Tsvetinov, Evaluation of services using a
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Appl. Soft Comput. 5 (2004)
23–33.
[9] S.J. Chen, C.L. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision-
making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1992.
[10] R.A. Ribeiro, Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making: a
review and new preference elicitation techniques, Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 78 (1996) 155–181.
[11] A.I. Ölçer, A.Y. Odabasi, A new fuzzy multiple attributive
group decision making methodology and its application to
propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem, Eur. J.
Operat. Res. 166 (2005) 93–114.
[12] C. Parkan, M.L. Wu, Process selection with multiple objective
and subjective attributes, Production Plann. Control 9 (1998)
189–200.
[13] modeFRONTIER, Version 3.0.0, ESTECO, http://www.esteco.
it/, Trieste, Italy.
[14] J. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems,
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975.
[15] P. Sen, D. Todd, Multiple criteria genetic algorithms: a cata-
maran design study, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Department of Marine Technology, EDC, UK, 1999.
[16] C. Poloni, M. Fearon, N.G. D., Parallelisation of genetic
algorithm for aerodynamic design optimisation, Adaptive
Comput. Eng. Design Control 96 (1996) 59–64.
[17] A.I. Ölçer, Development of a new fuzzy multiple attribute
decision making approach and its application to decision
making in ship design and shipbuilding, Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul
Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology,
Istanbul, Turkey, 2001.
[18] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its
application to approximate reasoning – I, Inform. Sci. 8
(1975) 199–249.
[19] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its
application to approximate reasoning – II, Inform. Sci. 8
(1975) 301–357.
[20] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications,
second ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.
[21] S.M. Chen, Aggregating fuzzy opinions in the group decision-
making environment, Cybernetics Syst. 29 (1998) 363–376.
[22] S.M. Chen, S.Y. Lin, A new method for fuzzy risk analysis, in:
Proceedings of the 1995 Artificial Intelligence Workshop,
1995, pp. 245–250.
[23] A. Kaufmann, M.M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic
Theory and Application, Van Nortrand Reinhold, New York,
1991.
[24] A. Bardossy, L. Duckstein, I. Bogardi, Combination of fuzzy
numbers representing expert opinions, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 57
(1993) 173–181.
[25] H.M. Hsu, C.T. Chen, Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under
group decision making, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 79 (1996) 279–285.
[26] C.L. Hwang, K.P. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision-making:
Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidel-
berg/New York, 1981.
 A.I. Ölçer et al. / Applied Soft Computing 6 (2006) 221–243 243

[27] IMO, SLF 40/INF.14 (Annex 1), Ro–Ro passenger ship safety:
guidance notes on Annex 3 of the agreement concerning
specific stability requirements for Ro–Ro passenger ships
undertaking regular scheduled international voyages between
or to or from designated ports in north west Europe and the
Baltic sea, July 1996.
[28] D. Vassalos, M. Pawlowski, O. Turan, A Theoretical Investiga-
tion on the Capsizal Resistance of Passenger/Ro–Ro Vessels
and Proposal of Survival Criteria, Final Report, Task 5, The
North West European R&D Project, 1996.
[29] NAPA Release 2003.2, NAPA Oy, http://www.napa.fi/, Hel-
sinki, Finland.