EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 393 (2024) MATEC Web Conf., 393 (2024) 01013 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 393, 2024
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Technologies and Advances in Automation, Aerospace and Robotics (STAAAR-2023)
Article Number 01013
Number of page(s) 7
Section Materials Science and Manufacturing Processes
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202439301013
Published online 13 March 2024
  1. C. A. Weber, J. Current, A. Desai, An optimization approach to determining the number of vendors to employ, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5, 90–98, (2000). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. E. Timmerman, “An Approach to Vendor Performance Evaluation,” IEEE Engineering Management Review, 15, 14–20, (1987). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. S. Saghafian, S. R. Hejazi, Multi-criteria Group Decision Making Using A Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS Procedure, in Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC’06), Vienna, Austria, November 28-30 (2005). [Google Scholar]
  4. P. Jain, S. Balaguru, R. Pendse, Design authentication of novel common interconvertible pallets for automobile engine: a finite element study, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 17, 1949–1958, (2023). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. E. Loken, Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11, 1584–1595, (2007), http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.11.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. E. Mulliner, N. Malys, V. Maliene, Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability, Omega Westport, 59, 146–156, (2016). http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, (Springer, Boston, M.A., U.S., 2000). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. E. Bernroider, V. Stix, A method using weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis for ranking and validity issues in decision making, Comput Oper Res, 34, 2637–2647, (2007). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. H. Yu, Y. Ma, L. Wang, Y. Zhai, Z. Du, A method for evaluating the rescue priority level of power line post-disaster based on AHP, in Proceedings of International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), IEEE, Takamatsu, Japan, August 06-09 (2017). http://doi.org/10.1109/ICMA.2017.8015784 [Google Scholar]
  10. W. Ran, AHP study on energy indicators system for sustainable development of Henan province, in Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks, Xi’an, China, May 27-29 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  11. Q. Xu, M. Xiong, A method for improving consistency of judgment matrix in the AHP, in Proceedings of 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (ACIRS), IEEE, Wuhan, China, June 16-18 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  12. R. Morgan, An investigation of constraints upon fisheries diversification using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Mar Policy, vol. 86, (2017). https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.037 [Google Scholar]
  13. K. Aldrin Wiguna, R. Sarno, N. F. Ariyani, Optimization Solar Farm site selection using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE: case study in Bali, in Proceedings of International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS), IEEE, Surabaya, Indonesia, October 12 (2016), 237 http://doi.org/10.1109/ICTS.2016.7910305 [Google Scholar]
  14. H. Taherdoost, Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); A Step by Step Approach, International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, 2, 244–246 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  15. A. Pranolo, S. M. Widyastuti, Simple additive weighting method on intelligent agent for urban forest health monitoring, in Proceedings of International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and Its Applications (IC3INA), IEEE, Bandung, Indonesia, October 21-23 (2014), 132 [Google Scholar]
  16. J. Kittur et al., Evaluating optimal generation using different multi-criteria decisionmaking methods, in Proceedings of International Conference on Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT-2015], IEEE, Nagercoil, India, March 19-20 (2015), 1 http://doi.org/10.1109/ICCPCT.2015.7159365. [Google Scholar]
  17. H. Shakouri G. M. Nabaee, S. Aliakbarisani, A quantitative discussion on the assessment of power supply technologies: DEA (data envelopment analysis) and SAW (simple additive weighting) as complementary methods for the ‘Grammar’ Energy, 64, 640–647 (2015). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.022 [Google Scholar]
  18. R. E. Setyani, R. Saputra, Flood-prone Areas Mapping at Semarang City by Using Simple Additive Weighting Method, Procedia Soc Behav Sci, 227, 378–386, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.089 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. P. R. Lokhande, S. S. Salunkhe, S. Balaguru, Numerical simulation and experimentation of endodontic file using Taguchi DoE, International Journal for Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 12, 32, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1051/smdo/2021032 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  20. H. E. Evcİoğlu, Supplier selection in supply chain network using MCDM methods, Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 41, 1–16, (2023). [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.