Proceedings

Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using TOPSIS

Method Under Fuzzy Environment. Application in
Spillway Selection †
Vasiliki Balioti *, Christos Tzimopoulos and Christos Evangelides
Department of Transportation and Hydraulic Engineering, School of Rural & Surveying Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering, Aristotle University, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected] (C.T.);
[email protected] (C.E.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +30-693-932-0723
† Presented at the 3rd EWaS International Conference on “Insights on the Water-Energy-Food Nexus”,
Lefkada Island, Greece, 27–30 June 2018.

Published: 31 July 2018

Abstract: The selection of an appropriate spillway has a significant effect to the construction of a
dam and several procedures and considerations are needed. In the past, this selection of the type of
the spillway was arbitrary and sometimes with bad results. Recently the Multiple Criteria Decision
Making theory has given the possibility to make a decision about the optimum form of a spillway
under complex circumstances. In this paper, the above method is used and especially the TOPSIS
(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method for the selection of a
spillway for a dam in the district of Kilkis in Northern Greece—‘Dam Pigi’. As the criteria were
fuzzy and uncertain, the Fuzzy TOPSIS method is introduced together with the AHP (Analytic
Hierarchy Process), which is used for the evaluation of criteria and weights. Five types of spillways
were selected as alternatives and nine criteria. The criteria are expressed as triangular fuzzy
numbers in order to formulate the problem. Finally, using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method, the
alternatives were ranked and the optimum type of spillway was obtained.

Keywords: spillway selection; fuzzy TOPSIS method; MCDM; AHP method

1. Introduction
The optimal type of a spillway is one of the most complex issues in water management including
fuzziness due to the existence of qualitative criteria and the uncertainty in evaluating them. Every
spillway presents some advantages and disadvantages, technical, financial, environmental etc. which
set a group of constraints. Therefore a comparative evaluation is needed to reach a scientific and
sufficiently justified solution.
Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) is considered as a sophisticated decision-making
tool involving both quantitative and qualitative factors. In recent years, several MCDM techniques
and approaches have been suggested in order to choose the probable optimal options. An extension
to the fuzzy multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) model is suggested in this work, where the
ratings of alternatives versus criteria, and the importance weights of all criteria, are assessed in
linguistic values represented by fuzzy numbers.
Specifically, an extension of the TOPSIS method in a fuzzy environment is adopted. Many
researchers have developed the model of similarity to ideal solution to the fuzzy environment and
have utilized it in various fields. Chen [1] expanded the TOPSIS method for decision-making
problems to the fuzzy environment. According to this theory, the attributes are expressed in TFNs
(Triangular Fuzzy Numbers), the normalization method is linear and vertex method is proposed for
Proceedings 2018, 2, 637; doi:10.3390/proceedings2110637 www.mdpi.com/journal/proceedings
Proceedings 2018, 2, 637 2 of 8

the calculation of the distance measurements for the final ranking. In parallel, a second normalization
technique is utilized from the article of Jahanshahloo et al. [2].
This paper is one of the first applications of the fuzzy TOPSIS method in solving water
management or hydraulic problems.

2. Methods

2.1. TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution)

The TOPSIS method was first developed in 1981 by Yoon and Hwang [3]. Its basic concept is
that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the ideal solution and the farthest
from the negative-ideal solution (Figure 1) [3,4].

Figure 1. Basic concept of TOPSIS method (A+: Ideal point, A−: Negative—Ideal Point).

According to Chen’s approach [1], the procedure of fuzzy TOPSIS is similar to the classic one
and can be expressed in a series of steps:
1. Construct the normalized decision matrix.
In the fuzzy environment, in order to avoid the complicated normalization formula used in
classical TOPSIS, simpler formulas are used to transform the various criteria scales into a comparable
scale.
• The linear scale transformation [1] is:

~r =  a ij , b ij , c ij  , c * = maxc (1)
ij
 c *j c *j c *j  j i
ij
 
• Jahanshahloo et al. formula [2] is:

 
 a ij b ij c ij 
~r =  
( ) ( )
, , (2)
ij n n n
  2
(a ij ) + (c ij )
2
 2b ij
2
 (a ij ) + (c ij )
2 
 i =1 i =1 i =1 
where ~ (
x ij = a ij , b ij , c ij ) are the elements of the decision matrix.
2. Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix.
~ =w
ν ~ ⋅ ~r , j = 1, 2, … m, i = 1, 2, … n
ij j ij (3)

3. Determine the fuzzy ideal and fuzzy negative-ideal solutions.

Proceedings 2018, 2, 637 3 of 8

~+ ,ν
A + = {ν ~ + ,...ν
~+ } (4)
1 2 m

~− ,ν
A − = {ν ~ − ,...ν
~− } (5)
1 2 m

~ + = (1,1,1) and ν
where ν ~ − = (0,0,0), j = 1, 2, … m.
j j

4. Calculate the separation measure:

• Ideal separation
m
S i+ =  s(ν
~ ,ν
ij
~+)
j i = 1, 2, … n (6)
j=1

• Negative-ideal separation
m
S i− =  s(ν
~ ,ν
ij
~−)
j i = 1, 2, … n (7)
j= 1

~ ,ν
where s( ν ~ + ) and s( ν
~ ,ν ~ − ) are distance measurements calculated with the vertex method:
ij j ij j

d( ~ ~ )=
xij , y ij (
1 1
3 
) (
1 2 2 2 2
) (3 3 2
x ij − y ij + x ij − y ij + x ij − y ij
 ) (8)

~ ( 1 2 3
) (
~ = y1 , y 2 , y 3
x ij = x ij , x ij , x ij , y ij ij ij ij
)
5. Calculate the relative closeness to the Ideal Solution.

S i−
c = +
*
,
*
0 < c i < 1, i = 1, 2, …, n (9)
(S i + S i− )
i

c *i = 1 if Ai = A+
c *i = 0 if Ai = A−

6. Rank the preference order.

*
A set of alternatives can now be preference ranked according to the descending order of c i [3,4].
The method presupposes that [3,4]:
• Each criterion in the decision matrix takes either monotonically increasing or monotonically
decreasing utility.
• A decision matrix of n alternatives and m criteria and a set of weights for the criteria are required.
• Any outcome which is expressed in a non-numerical way should be quantified through the
appropriate scaling technique.

2.2. AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [5] is based on decomposing a complex MCDM problem
into a system of hierarchies. There is a fundamental 1–9 scale of absolute numbers shown in Table 1,
in order to design the hierarchy.
When we use judgment to estimate dominance in making comparisons, and in particular when
the criterion of the comparisons is intangible, instead of using two numbers wi and wj from a scale
(rather than interpreting the significance of their ratio wi/wj) we assign a single number drawn from
the fundamental 1–9 scale of absolute numbers shown in Table 1 to represent the ratio (wi/wj)/1. It is
the nearest integer approximation to the ratio wi/wj. The derived scale will reveal what the wi and wj
Proceedings 2018, 2, 637 4 of 8

are. This is a central fact about the relative measurement approach and the need for a fundamental
scale.

Table 1. Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers.

Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation

Two activities contribute equally to
1 Equal Importance
the objective
Experience and judgment slightly
3 Moderate importance
favor one activity over another
Experience and judgment strongly
5 Strong importance
favor one activity over another
An activity is favored very strongly
7 Very strong or demonstrated importance over another; its dominance
demonstrated in practice
The evidence favoring one activity
9 Extreme importance over another is of the highest possible
order of affirmation
If activity i has one of the above nonzero numbers
Reciprocals of above assigned to it when compared with activity j, then j has A logical assumption
the reciprocal value when compared with i
Intensities of 2, 4, 6 and 8 can be used to express intermediate values.

2.3. Linguistic Variables

The extension of the TOPSIS method in the fuzzy environment can be achieved by expressing
the weights of the criteria and the ratings as linguistic variables. A linguistic variable is a variable
whose values are linguistic terms. 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 [6]. According to Chen, the linguistic variables can be expressed in positive
triangular fuzzy numbers as shown in Tables 2 and 3 [1].

Table 2. Linguistic variables for the importance weight of each criterion.

Very low (VL) (0.1, 0, 0)

Low (L) (0.3, 0.1, 0.1)
Medium low (ML) (0.5, 0.3, 0.3)
Medium (M) (0.7 ,0.5, 0.5)
Medium high (MH) (0.9, 0.7, 0.7)
High (H) (1, 0.9, 0.9)
Very high (VH) (1, 1, 1)

Table 3. Linguistic variables for the ratings.

Very poor (VP) (1, 0, 0)

Poor (P) (3, 1, 1)
Medium poor (MP) (5, 3, 3)
Fair (F) (7, 5, 5)
Medium good (MG) (9, 7, 7)
Good (G) (10, 9, 9)
Very good (VG) (10, 10, 10)

3. Illustrative application

3.1. General Information

The dam which was chosen for this application is “Pigi Dam” on the “Kotza-Dere” river and it
is located in the north of Greece. The dam is considered as a large dam and was constructed in 1999.
It is a rockfill dam constructed for irrigation. There are five alternative types of the spillway, based
Proceedings 2018, 2, 637 5 of 8

on their technical efficiency for the dam which was selected; (a) X1 = ogee or overfall spillway, (b) X2
= shaft or morning glory spillway, (c) X3 = side channel spillway, (d) X4 = siphon spillway and (e) X5
= gated spillway.

3.2. Criteria
The main criteria were determined using extensive library studies and experts’ opinion. The
institutes that were found to give special recommendations for the selection of the type of the
spillway are the Indian Standards Institute [7] and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation [8]. Finally, nine
criteria have been chosen: (a) C1 = construction costs, (b) C2 = maintenance costs, (c) C3 = foundation,
(d) C4 = reservoir capacity, (e) C5 = static/construction difficulty, (f) C6 = discharge capacity, (g) C7 =
physical space, (h) C8 = conveyance feature (costs and construction difficulty) and (i) C9 = aesthetic.
Firstly, the decision maker constructs the pair-wise comparison matrix of the criteria (Table 4).
Since the consistency ratio (C.R.) is less than 0.1 or close, the judgments are acceptable. Finally, in
order to calculate the weights of the criteria, according to Saaty, the eigenvector is calculated (Table
5). In Figure 2 the column chart, whose values derive from Table 5, shows the weights’ comparison
across the criteria.

Table 4. Comparison matrix of the weights.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
C1 1 1 4 4 4 5 7 3 9
C2 1 1 4 4 4 5 7 3 9
C3 0.25 0.25 1 0.2 1 4 6 0.25 6
C4 0.25 0.25 5 1 5 6 5 0.25 7
C5 0.25 0.25 1 0.2 1 5 5 0.25 6
C6 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.17 0.20 1 3 0.2 4
C7 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.33 1 0.14 5
C8 0.33 0.33 4 4 4 5 7 1 8
C9 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.20 0.13 1

Table 5. Eigenvector—Criteria’s weights.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
0.235 0.235 0.074 0.133 0.075 0.039 0.029 0.164 0.015

Subsequently, fuzziness is introduced to the process so as to confront the uncertainties of

judgments or calculations of the previous step. The decision maker in Table 6 reconstructs Table 5
using linguistic variables and corresponds them to the TFNs proposed by Chen in Tables 2 and 3.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Figure 2. Importance of each criterion after AHP evaluation.

Proceedings 2018, 2, 637 6 of 8

Table 6. Linguistic and fuzzy weights.

C 1 C 2 C 3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
VH VH ML M ML L L MH L
(0.9, 1, 1) (0.9, 1, 1) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) (0, 0.1, 0.3) (0, 0.1, 0.3) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0, 0.1, 0.3)

3.3. Decision Matrix

Initially, the alternatives are compared with pair-wise comparisons for each criterion. The
eigenvectors, which are calculated for each criterion, form the columns of the decision matrix (Table
7). The process of determining the decision matrix expressed in linguistic terms (Table 8) and the
fuzzy decision matrix (Table 9) is similar to determining the matrix of fuzzy weights, described above.

Table 7. Decision matrix after AHP evaluation.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
X1 0.22 0.50 0.29 0.08 0.36 0.06 0.13 0.11 0.28
X2 0.47 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.52 0.34 0.04 0.52
X3 0.22 0.26 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.28 0.06
X4 0.05 0.07 0.29 0.08 0.16 0.28 0.34 0.28 0.06
X5 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.67 0.36 0.06 0.06 0.28 0.06

Table 8. Decision matrix in linguistic terms.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
X1 F VG VG P VG P MP F F
X2 VG MP P P P VG VG P VG
X3 F F P P MP P MP VG P
X4 P P VG P F F VG VG P
X5 P P VG VG VG P MP VG P

Table 9. Fuzzy decision matrix.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C10
Χ1 (3, 5, 7) (9, 10, 10) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3) (1, 3, 5) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7)
Χ2 (9, 10, 10) (1, 3, 5) (0, 1, 3) (0, 1, 3) (0, 1, 3) (9, 10, 10) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3) (9, 10, 10)
Χ3 (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (0, 1, 3) (0, 1, 3) (1, 3, 5) (0, 1, 3) (1, 3, 5) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3)
Χ4 (0, 1, 3) (0, 1, 3) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (9, 10, 10) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3)
Χ5 (0, 1, 3) (0, 1, 3) (9, 10, 10) (9, 10, 10) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3) (1, 3, 5) (9, 10, 10) (0, 1, 3)

3.4. Results
The optimal type of spillway is obtained by completing the TOPSIS’ calculations (Equations (1)–
(9)). For the calculations needed, two programs were utilized in Visual Fortran [9]. The ranking with
the two normalization approaches are:
• The linear scale transformation [1]:
X1(0.313) > X5(0.261) > X3(0.246) > X2(0.243) > X4(0.224)
X1 = ogee spillway > X5 = gated spillway > X3 = side channel spillway > X2 = shaft spillway > X4 =
siphon spillway
• Jahanshahloo et al. formula [2]:
X1(0.171) > X2(0.139) > X5(0.137) > X3(0.130) > X4(0.111)
X1 = ogee spillway > X2 = shaft spillway > X5 = gated spillway > X3 = side channel spillway > X4 =
siphon spillway.
Proceedings 2018, 2, 637 7 of 8

In Figure 3, the charts present the results of calculating the separation measures, Si+ and Si−
(Equations (6) and (7)) with each of the two approaches.

10 Si+ Si- 10 Si+ Si-

2.12 1.57 1.28 1.19 1.02 1.26

8 2.29 2.31 2.47 8
Separation measures

2.96

Separation measures
6 6

4 4 7.93 7.97 8.19 7.93

7.16 7.07 7.35 6.98 7.61
6.49
2 2

0 0
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
Spillway Spillway
(a) (b)

Figure 3. Separation measures; Ideal separation (Si+). Negative-ideal separation (Si−). (a) 1st approach
(linear scale transformation); (b) 2nd approach (Jahanshahloo et al. formula).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper presents the first application of the combination of the proposed MCDM methods
with fuzzy logic to solve the problem of selecting the optimal type of a spillway.
Although a spillway is a significant structure, little guidelines can be found for this selection. As
a result, in most cases, the selection derives from a techno-economic feasibility and analysis. Our
investigation proves that the result should take into consideration more parameters than technical
feasibility and low construction costs. X2 (shaft or morning glory spillway) spillway has the highest
evaluation for C1 (construction costs) criterion (Table 8), which means that it is the most cost-efficient
alternative. Nevertheless, in the presented approaches, X2 would be the fourth or the second choice
out of the five depending on the normalization technique.
Although the two approaches do not lead to the same ranking, the optimal choice is Χ1, the ogee
spillway and the worst is X4, the siphon spillway. The difference in ranking could be justified as the
values of the relative closeness for the alternatives Χ2, X3 and X5 are very close to the second approach
and no clear order could be obtained.
It is also notable that the separation measures, ideal and negative-ideal separations, have the
same ranking as the final one of the relative closeness.
Finally, it is suggested that engineering problems involving decision making be dealt with
MCDM methods and fuzzy logic. The aforementioned process, with either approach, could also be
implemented in various multi-criteria engineering problems.

References
1. Chen, C.T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst.
2000, 114, 1–9.
2. Jahanshahloo, G.R.; Lotfi, F.H.; Izadikhah, M. Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making
problems with fuzzy data. Appl. Math. Comput. 2006, 181, 1544–1551.
3. Yoon, K.; Hwang, C.L. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981.
4. Yoon, K. System Selection by Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 1980.
Proceedings 2018, 2, 637 8 of 8

5. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, and Resources Allocation; McGraw-Hill:
New York, NY, USA, 1980.
6. Zadeh, L.A. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Inf. Sci.
1975, 8, 199–249.
7. Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 10137: Guidelines for Selection of Spillways and Energy Dissipators; Bureau of
Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1982.
8. Reclamation, U.B.O. General Spillway Design Considerations. Design Standards No. 14 Chapter 3: Final: Phase 4;
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Washington DC, USA, 2014.
9. Tzimopoulos, C.; Papadopoulos, Β. Fuzzy Logic with Application in Engineering; Ziti Publications:
Thessaloniki, Greek, 2013. (In Greek)

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).