journal article·2021-02-05Open access

Typology Selection of Retaining Walls Based on Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods

Belén Muñoz-Medina, Javier Ordóñez, Manuel G. Romana, Antonio Lara-Galera

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 4

Abstract

In civil engineering and construction, in the selection of the most adequate and sustainable alternative, all of the alternatives and selection criteria, such as the requirements of the construction process (which are often overlooked) and the preferences of designers, clients, or contractors, are not always taken into account. The purpose of this article is to suggest a methodology that may allow studying all of the possible alternatives to find the most ideal solution among all of the existing possibilities for the selection of retaining walls to be built in infrastructures in different environments. For this purpose, all typologies of retaining walls and selection criteria (external requirements, construction requirements, characteristics of the natural land and economic criteria) are first identified. Subsequently, a simple methodological method is proposed, allowing the relative importance of each criterion to be established and allowing us to select the most suitable solution for each situation by successively applying different multicriteria decision-making methods. Finally, the methodology developed is applied to two projects in different locations with different constraints. The results obtained provide a set of compromise solutions that remain as best-rank alternatives when the weights of the criteria change. Therefore, the methodology developed can be applied to the selection of typologies of other structures in future projects.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Multi-Criteria Decision Making · Urban Planning and Valuation

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Civil Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain

School of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain

References (51)

Show source-provided references
1. Spanish Ministry of Development (1999). Tipologia de Muros de Carretera, MINISTERIO DE FOMENTO. [1st ed.].
2. Anderson, S. (2012). Chapter 62 Types of retaining walls. ICE Manual, ICE Publishing.
3. South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) (2010). SCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT).
4. Decision tree for selecting retaining wall systems based on logistic regression analysis10.1016/j.autcon.2010.06.005 ↗
5. Life cycle assessment of earth-retaining walls: An environmental comparison10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.268 ↗
6. Liou, J.J.H., Lu, M.T., Hu, S.K., Cheng, C.H., and Chuang, Y.C. (2017). A hybrid MCDM model for improving the electronic health record to better serve client needs. Sustainability, 9.10.3390/su9101819 ↗
7. Screening in multiple criteria decision analysis10.1016/j.dss.2007.12.017 ↗
8. Anderson, S.A., Alzamora, D., and Demarco, M.J. (2008). Asset management systems for retaining walls. Geo-Velopment: The Role of Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in New and Redevelopment Projects—Proceedings of the 2008 Biennial Geotechnical Seminar, ASCE Library.10.1061/41006(332)12 ↗
9. Life cycle assessment of cost-optimized buttress earth-retaining walls: A parametric study10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.085 ↗
10. Design Basis and Economic Aspects of Different Types of Retaining Walls
11. Retaining walls with relief shelves10.1007/s41062-016-0007-x ↗
12. Ríos, S. (1988). Algunos procesos y problemas en la Ciencia de la decisión. Rev. Matemática Complut., 11, Available online: http://www.mat.ucm.es/serv/revmat/vol11-1/vol11-1g.html.10.5209/rev_REMA.1998.v11.n1.17310 ↗
13. Penadés-Plà, V., García-Segura, T., Martí, J., and Yepes, V. (2016). A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design. Sustainability, 8.10.3390/su8121295 ↗
14. Cheney, J.N. (2009). Utilizing the Decision Matrix to Introduce the Engineering Design Process; Center for Teaching Excellence, United States Military Academy, West Point, United States Military Academy.
15. Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6 ↗
16. Elicitation of criteria importance weights through the Simos method: A robustness concern10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.037 ↗
17. Sierra, L.A., Yepes, V., and Pellicer, E. (2018). A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures. J. Clean. Prod.10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022 ↗
18. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I ↗
19. Fülöp, J. (2005). Introduction to Decision Making Methods, BDEI-3 Workshop.
20. The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310 ↗
21. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1 ↗
22. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020 ↗
23. Akram, M., Al-Kenani, A.N., and Alcantud, J.C.R. (2019). Group decision-making based on the VIKOR method with trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy information. Symmetry, 11.10.3390/sym11101313 ↗
24. Site selection of desalination plant in Libya by using Combinative Distance-Based Assessment (CODAS) method
25. A novel neutrosophic CODAS method: Selection among wind energy plant locations10.3233/JIFS-181255 ↗
26. Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications.
27. Fundamentals of the analytic network process—Multiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks10.1007/s11518-006-0171-1 ↗
28. Collaborative Value Modelling in corporate contexts with MACBETH10.1016/j.procs.2019.12.051 ↗
29. Giron, X., and Madrid, D. (2008). Comparación de Dos Métodos de Toma de Decisiones Multicriterio: Macbeth y Promethée, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
30. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples
31. The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods10.1007/BF00134132 ↗
32. Brans, J.-P., and Smet, Y. (2016). PROMETHEE Methods, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science; Springer. Chapter 1.10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_6 ↗
33. Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J., and Sorenson, K. (2001). Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods, U.S. Department of Energy.
34. A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001 ↗
35. Saaty, R.W. (2016). Decision Making in Complex Environments. The Analytic Network Process (ANP) for Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback, RWS.
36. Belošević, I., Kosijer, M., Ivić, M., and Pavlović, N. (2018). Group decision making process for early stage evaluations of infrastructure projects using extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev., 10.10.1186/s12544-018-0318-4 ↗
37. A military airport location selection by AHP integrated PROMETHEE and VIKOR methods10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.022 ↗
38. Ramezanianpour, A.A., Tabatabaei, S.A., Pourlak, M., and Abareshi, M. (2016). AHP-VIKOR Bridge Structural System Selection in Urban Areas Tehran Interchanges Case Study. Ambient Sci., 3.10.21276/ambi.2016.03.2.ta05 ↗
39. Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.007 ↗
40. Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches10.3390/su71013947 ↗
41. Decision complexity and consensus in Web-based spatial decision making: A case study of site selection problem using GIS and multicriteria analysis10.1016/j.cities.2015.03.007 ↗
42. El método TOPSIS Relativo vs. Absoluto
43. Contractor Selection Using Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000488 ↗
44. Spanish Ministry of Development (2006). Guía Para el Proyecto y la Ejecución de Muros de Escollera en Obras de Carretera, Spanish Ministry of Development.
45. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007 ↗
46. On rank reversal and TOPSIS method10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022 ↗
47. A new multi-criteria decision making approach for sustainable material selection problem: A critical study on rank reversal problem10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.062 ↗
48. Rank Reversal and the VIKOR Method: An Empirical Evaluation10.1142/S0219622017500237 ↗
49. On rank reversal in decision analysis10.1016/j.mcm.2008.06.019 ↗
50. Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: With an application to Turkish deposit banking market10.15388/Informatica.2014.10 ↗
51. Evaluación de Tecnología utilizando TOPSIS en Presencia de Multi-colinealidad en Atributos: ¿Por qué usar distancia de Mahalanobis?