EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 211 (2018) MATEC Web Conf., 211 (2018) 12007 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 211, 2018
The 14th International Conference on Vibration Engineering and Technology of Machinery (VETOMAC XIV)
Article Number 12007
Number of page(s) 6
Section RM: Sustainable Railway Maintenance
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201821112007
Published online 10 October 2018
  1. J.S. Dodgson, M. Spackman, A. Pearman, and L.D. Phillips, Department for Communities and Local Government: London, (2009). [Google Scholar]
  2. T.L. Saaty, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1, 83-98 (2008). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. M. Rogers, M. Bruen, and L.-Y. Maystre, “ELECTRE and Decision Support”, Springer US, Boston, MA (2000). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. J. Brans, Faculte Des Sciences de l’Administration, Universite Laval, (1982). [Google Scholar]
  5. C.A. Bana E Costa, J.-M. De Corte, and J.-C. Vansnick, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11, 359-387 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  6. C. Bana e Costa, J.-M. De Corte, and J.-C. Vansnick, “MACBETH. (Overview of MACBETH multicriteria decision analysis approach)”, (2003). [Google Scholar]
  7. C.A. Bana e Costa, J.-M. de Corte, J.-C. Vansnick, J.J. Cochran, L.A. Cox, P. Keskinocak, J.P. Kharoufeh, and J.C. Smith, MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique), in: Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., (2010). [Google Scholar]
  8. C.A. Bana e Costa, J.-M. De Corte, and J.-C. Vansnick, Www.M-MACBETH.Com, (2017). [Google Scholar]
  9. C.A.B. e Costa and J.-C. Vansnick, General Overview of the Macbeth Approach, in: Advances in Multicriteria Analysis, Springer, Boston, MA, (1995), pp. 93-100. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. J. Zak, The MCDA methodology applied to solve complex transportation decision problems, in: (2002). [Google Scholar]
  11. M. Dooms and C. Macharis, Institutional Aspects in Transport Project Evaluation, (2006). [Google Scholar]
  12. G. Kabir, R. Sadiq, and S. Tesfamariam, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 1176-1210 (2014). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. M.E. Bouwman and H.C. Moll, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 7, 331-345 (2002). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. R. Vreeker, P. Nijkamp, and C. Ter Welle, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 7, 27-47 (2002). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. C. Macharis, A. Verbeke, and K. De Brucker, Research in Transportation Economics, 8, 443-462 (2004). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. G.-H. Tzeng, C.-W. Lin, and S. Opricovic, Energy Policy, 33, 1373-1383 (2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. C. Macharis, (2000). [Google Scholar]
  18. A. Sirikijpanichkul and L. Ferreira, (2005). [Google Scholar]
  19. K. De Brucker, “Sociaal-economische evaluatie van overheidsinvesteringen in transportinfrastructuur: kritische analyse van het bestaande instrumentarium Ontwikkeling van een eclectisch evaluatie-instrument”, Garant, (1998). [Google Scholar]
  20. L. Eboli and G. Mazzulla, “A multicriteria approach for analyzing railway service quality”, (2013). [Google Scholar]
  21. L. Maskeliunaite and H. Sivilevicius, Applying AHP technique to the assessment of railway trip quality (RTQ), in: (2011). [Google Scholar]
  22. E. Nathanail, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42, 48-66 (2008). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. G. Bureika, L. Liudvinavičius, G. Vaičiūnas, and G. Bekintis, Eksploatacja i Niezawodność, 15, (2013). [Google Scholar]
  24. H. Gerçek, B. Karpak, and T. Kılınçaslan, Transportation, 31, 203-228 (2004). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. H. Sivilevičius and L. Maskeliūnaite, Transport, 25, 368-381 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. L. Maskeliūnaite, H. Sivilevičius, and V. Podvezko, Transport, 24, 100-112 (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. M. An, Y. Chen, and C.J. Baker, Information Sciences, 181, 3946-3966 (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. S. Chen, Y. Leng, B. Mao, and S. Liu, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 66, 13-26 (2014). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. N. Aydin, Transport Policy, 55, 87-98 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. M.K. Sameni, J. Preston, and M.K. Sameni, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 20, 33-38 (2016). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. E. Celik, N. Aydin, and A.T. Gumus, Transport Policy, 36, 283-293 (2014). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. F. Yong, Q. Yong, Z. Shuting, L. Wantong, J. Limin, L. Xinwang, Z. Zhilong, and L. Jianying, Operation safety assessment of high-speed train with fuzzy group decision making method and empirical research, in: IEEE, (2016), pp. 35-42. [Google Scholar]
  33. G. Longo, G. Medeossi, and E. Padoano, Using simulation to assess infrastructure performance in multicriteria evaluation of railway projects, in: (2012). [Google Scholar]
  34. I.Z. Nedevska, Z.M. Krakutovski, and Z.S. Zafirovski, Tehnika, 72, 797-805 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. L. Markovic, D. Marković, and G. Ćirović, APPLICATION OF MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION IN DESIGNING RAILWAY LINE AT THE LEVEL OF THE MAIN PROJECT, in: (2012). [Google Scholar]
  36. M. De Luca, G. Dell’Acqua, and R. Lamberti, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 608-617 (2012). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. I. Ambrasaite, M.B. Barfod, and K.B. Salling, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20, 944-953 (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. M.R. Saat and J. Aguilar Serrano, Transportation Planning and Technology, 38, 200-213 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. M. Kosijer, M. Ivic, M. Markovic, and I. Belosevic, Gradevinar, 64, 195-205 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  40. R. Mateus, J.A. Ferreira, and J. Carreira, European Journal of Operational Research, 187, 1-18 (2008). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. B. Nysträm and P. Säderholm, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6, 467-479 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. N.F. Tamirat, Ethiopian E-Journal for Research and Innovation Foresight (Ee-JRIF), 6, (2014). [Google Scholar]
  43. J. Montesinos-Valera, P. Aragonés-Beltrán, and J.-P. Pastor-Ferrando, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 13, 1476-1496 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. S. Filippo, P.C.M. Ribeiro, and S.K. Ribeiro, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12, 423-436 (2007). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. D. Moazami, H. Behbahani, and R. Muniandy, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 12869-12879 (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. R. Janssen, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 101-109 (2001). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. G. Polat and E. Eray, Procedia Engineering, 123, 415-422 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. P. Jiang, D. Wang, and Y. Xing, Risk Analysis of General Accidents in China Railway Passenger Transportation, in: IEEE, (2015), pp. 950-953. [Google Scholar]
  49. Y.-H. Li, Design scheme selection of railway freight car using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, in: IEEE, (2009), pp. 267-271. [Google Scholar]
  50. S. Dhir, M.V. Marinov, and D. Worsley, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 3, 431-448 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. J. Čaiko, N. Kuņicina, A. Patļins, A. Pelņiķis, and L. Ribickis, Publication. EditionName, 151-154 (2008). [Google Scholar]
  52. C. Esveld, “Modern railway track”, 2. ed, MRT-Productions, Zaltbommel (2001). [Google Scholar]
  53. V. Profillidis, “Railway management and engineering”, Routledge, (2016). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. M. Andersson, TRITA-INFRA, (2002). [Google Scholar]
  55. W.E. Walker, Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 9, 11 (2000). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, and O. Kapliński, Engineering Structures and Technologies, 7, 103-113 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  57. J. Zak and T. Thiel, Multiple criteria evaluation of the development scenarios of the mass transit system, in: (2001). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.