Research Article
TOPSIS ve MAUT Yöntemleri ile İçmesuyu Dağıtım Sistemlerinde Rehabilitasyon Önceliğinin Belirlenmesi
Abstract
İçmesuyu dağıtım sistemlerinde meydana gelen arızaların sıklığının artmasına bağlı olarak hizmet kalitesi düşmekte ve işletme maliyetleri artmaktadır. Bu nedenle İçmesuyu dağıtım sistemlerinde risk değerlendirmesi, şebeke rehabilitasyon programının oluşturulması ve varlık yönetimi kapsamında analiz ve değerlendirmelerin yapılması sistem yönetimi açısından oldukça önemlidir. Bu çalışma kapsamında, çoklu ölçütlü karar verme yöntemleri ile içmesuyu dağıtım sistemlerinde şebeke rehabilitasyonunda öncelikli bölgelerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla, öncelikle literatür incelemesi yapılarak verisi ölçülebilen, uygun, karşılaştırılabilir ölçütler çerçevesinde toplam 28 faktör belirlenmiştir. Belirlenen bu faktörlerin etki derecesini belirlemek ve ağırlıkları hesaplanmak için ENTROPI yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Hesaplanan ağırlık katsayılarının problemin doğal yapısı ile uyumlu olduğu görülmüştür. Faktörlere ait ağırlıklar ve saha verileri kullanılarak TOPSIS ve MAUT yöntemleri ile ayrı ayrı analiz yapılmış, öncelik sıralaması yapılmış ve sonuçlar değerlendirilmiştir. Yapılan değerlendirmelerde her iki yöntem ile belirlenen bölgelerin benzer olduğu görülmüştür.
References
- [1]. Choi T, Koo J. A water supply risk assessment model for water distribution network. Desalin. Water Treat, 2015; 54: 1410–1420.
- [2]. Ennaouri I, Fuamba M. New Integrated Condition-Assessment Model for Combined Storm-Sewer Systems. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2013; 139: 53–64.
- [3]. Haider H, Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S. Selecting performance indicators for small and medium sized water utilities: Multi-criteria analysis using ELECTRE method. Urban Water J. 2015; 12(4): 305–327
- [4]. Tscheikner-Gratl F. Integrated rehabilitation planning of urban infrastructure systems using a street section priority model. Urban Water J.,2015; 9006: 1–13.
- [5]. Tsitsifli S, Kanakoudis V, Bakouros I.Pipe Networks Risk Assessment Based on Survival Analysis. Water Resour. Manage. 2011; 25: 3729–3746.
- [6]. Göral R. Turizm Destinasyonu Rekabetçilik Faktörleri Ve Entropi Yöntemiyle Ağırlıklandırılması. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2016; 2: 66–81.
- [7]. Inanloo B. A decision aid GIS-based risk assessment and vulnerability analysis approach for transportation and pipeline networks. Saf. Sci. 2016; 84: 57–66.
- [8]. Li Z. Water pipe condition assessment: A hierarchical beta process approach for sparse incident data. Mach. Learn. 2014; 95: 11–26.
- [9]. Fares H A, Zayed T. Evaluating the Risk of Water Main Failure Using a Hierarchical Fuzzy Expert System. 2008; CSCE 2008 Annual Conference, June 10-13. 1–11.
- [10]. Sargaonkar A. Risk assessment study for water supply network using GIS. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA, 2009; 57: 355–360.
- [11]. Francisque A. Prioritizing monitoring locations in a water distribution network: A fuzzy risk approach. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA,2009; 58(7): 488–509.
- [12]. Morais D C, Almeida, ATDe. Water network rehabilitation : A group decision-making approach. WaterSA. 2010; 36(4): 487–494.
- [13]. Roozbahani A, Zahraie B, Tabesh M. PROMETHEE with Precedence Order in the Criteria (PPOC) as a New Group Decision Making Aid: An Application in Urban Water Supply Management. Water Resour. Manage.. 2012; 26(12): 3581–3599.
- [14]. Francisque A . A decision support tool for water mains renewal for small to medium sized utilities: A risk index approach. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA, 2014; 63(4): 281–302.
- [15]. Scholten L. Strategic rehabilitation planning of piped water networks using multi-criteria decision analysis. Water Research, 2014; 49: 124–143.
- [16]. Marzouk M, Hamid SA, El-Said M. A methodology for prioritizing water mains rehabilitation in Egypt. HBRC Journal. Housing and Building National Research Center. 2015; 11(1): 114–128.
- [17]. Gül Ş. Determination of Priority Regions for Rehabilitation in Water Distribution Systems. Master of Science Thesis, İnönü University. 2018.
- [18]. MASKİ (2018). Malatya Water and Sewerage Administration General Directorate. Water Supply Unit Report.
- [19]. Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems. Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 1981; 269. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
- [20]. Uzun S, Kazan H. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinden AHP TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE Karşılaştırılması Gemi İnşada Ana Makine Seçimi Uygulaması. J of Transportation and Logistics. 2016; 1(1): 1–18.
- [21]. Fishburn P . Additive utilities with finite sets: Applications in the management sciences. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly. 1967; 14(1): 1-13.
- [22]. .Keeney R, Fishburn P. Seven independence concepts and continuous multiattribute utility functions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1974; 11(3): 294-327
- [23]. Loken E. Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Rev. 2007; 11: 1584-1595.
- [24]. Tunca PMZ. Evaluating the Performances of the Opec Countries By Using Entropi and Maut Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods. 2016; 1–12.
Year 2021,
Volume: 33 Issue: 1, 27 - 38, 15.02.2021
Abstract
References
- [1]. Choi T, Koo J. A water supply risk assessment model for water distribution network. Desalin. Water Treat, 2015; 54: 1410–1420.
- [2]. Ennaouri I, Fuamba M. New Integrated Condition-Assessment Model for Combined Storm-Sewer Systems. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2013; 139: 53–64.
- [3]. Haider H, Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S. Selecting performance indicators for small and medium sized water utilities: Multi-criteria analysis using ELECTRE method. Urban Water J. 2015; 12(4): 305–327
- [4]. Tscheikner-Gratl F. Integrated rehabilitation planning of urban infrastructure systems using a street section priority model. Urban Water J.,2015; 9006: 1–13.
- [5]. Tsitsifli S, Kanakoudis V, Bakouros I.Pipe Networks Risk Assessment Based on Survival Analysis. Water Resour. Manage. 2011; 25: 3729–3746.
- [6]. Göral R. Turizm Destinasyonu Rekabetçilik Faktörleri Ve Entropi Yöntemiyle Ağırlıklandırılması. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2016; 2: 66–81.
- [7]. Inanloo B. A decision aid GIS-based risk assessment and vulnerability analysis approach for transportation and pipeline networks. Saf. Sci. 2016; 84: 57–66.
- [8]. Li Z. Water pipe condition assessment: A hierarchical beta process approach for sparse incident data. Mach. Learn. 2014; 95: 11–26.
- [9]. Fares H A, Zayed T. Evaluating the Risk of Water Main Failure Using a Hierarchical Fuzzy Expert System. 2008; CSCE 2008 Annual Conference, June 10-13. 1–11.
- [10]. Sargaonkar A. Risk assessment study for water supply network using GIS. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA, 2009; 57: 355–360.
- [11]. Francisque A. Prioritizing monitoring locations in a water distribution network: A fuzzy risk approach. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA,2009; 58(7): 488–509.
- [12]. Morais D C, Almeida, ATDe. Water network rehabilitation : A group decision-making approach. WaterSA. 2010; 36(4): 487–494.
- [13]. Roozbahani A, Zahraie B, Tabesh M. PROMETHEE with Precedence Order in the Criteria (PPOC) as a New Group Decision Making Aid: An Application in Urban Water Supply Management. Water Resour. Manage.. 2012; 26(12): 3581–3599.
- [14]. Francisque A . A decision support tool for water mains renewal for small to medium sized utilities: A risk index approach. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA, 2014; 63(4): 281–302.
- [15]. Scholten L. Strategic rehabilitation planning of piped water networks using multi-criteria decision analysis. Water Research, 2014; 49: 124–143.
- [16]. Marzouk M, Hamid SA, El-Said M. A methodology for prioritizing water mains rehabilitation in Egypt. HBRC Journal. Housing and Building National Research Center. 2015; 11(1): 114–128.
- [17]. Gül Ş. Determination of Priority Regions for Rehabilitation in Water Distribution Systems. Master of Science Thesis, İnönü University. 2018.
- [18]. MASKİ (2018). Malatya Water and Sewerage Administration General Directorate. Water Supply Unit Report.
- [19]. Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems. Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 1981; 269. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
- [20]. Uzun S, Kazan H. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinden AHP TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE Karşılaştırılması Gemi İnşada Ana Makine Seçimi Uygulaması. J of Transportation and Logistics. 2016; 1(1): 1–18.
- [21]. Fishburn P . Additive utilities with finite sets: Applications in the management sciences. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly. 1967; 14(1): 1-13.
- [22]. .Keeney R, Fishburn P. Seven independence concepts and continuous multiattribute utility functions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1974; 11(3): 294-327
- [23]. Loken E. Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Rev. 2007; 11: 1584-1595.
- [24]. Tunca PMZ. Evaluating the Performances of the Opec Countries By Using Entropi and Maut Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods. 2016; 1–12.
There are 24 citations in total.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Engineering |
| Journal Section | MBD |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | February 15, 2021 |
| Submission Date | February 19, 2020 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2021 Volume: 33 Issue: 1 |
