Scribd
Upload
23 views17 pages

Decision Making in Fuzzy Environments - 2

The document discusses fuzzy linear programming approaches to decision making under uncertainty. It presents Zimmermann's method for handling fuzzy constraints and objectives. An example of applying fuzzy linear programming to fleet vehicle selection is provided, showing how it allows for flexibility compared to a non-fuzzy model. Multiple objective linear programming with fuzzy goals is also covered.

Uploaded by

Mohamed mohamed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views17 pages

Decision Making in Fuzzy Environments - 2

The document discusses fuzzy linear programming approaches to decision making under uncertainty. It presents Zimmermann's method for handling fuzzy constraints and objectives. An example of applying fuzzy linear programming to fleet vehicle selection is provided, showing how it allows for flexibility compared to a non-fuzzy model. Multiple objective linear programming with fuzzy goals is also covered.

Uploaded by

Mohamed mohamed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

Decision Making in Fuzzy

Environments
Part II
Zimmermann’s approach
Let us µi(x) denote the degree of
satisfaction of the i-th constraint (<=)
by x ϵRn. Then we have,
FLP
FLP
Recall: Example A
• A company wanted to decide on the size and structure of its truck fleet. Four
differently sized trucks (Xl through X4) were considered .
• The objective was to minimize cost, and the constraints were to supply all
customers (who have a strong seasonally fluctuating demand). This meant
certain quantities had to be moved (quantity constraint) and a minimum
number of customers per day had to be contacted (routing constraint).
• For other reasons, it was required that at least six of the smallest trucks be
included in the fleet. The management wanted to use quantitative analysis
and agreed to the following suggested linear programming approach:
LP Model

The solution was Xl = 6, X2 = 16.29, X3 = 0, X4 =58.96,


and Min Cost = 3,864,975
Situation becomes danger!!!
• When the results were presented to management, it turned out that the findings
were considered acceptable but that the management would rather have some
"leeway" in the constraints.
• Management felt that because demand forecasts had been used to formulate the
constraints (and because forecasts never turn out to be correct!), there was a
danger of not being able to meet higher demands by their customers.
• When they were asked whether or not they really wanted to "minimize
transportation cost ," they answered: Now you are joking. A few months ago you
told us that we have to minimize cost; otherwise, you could not model our
problem.
• Nobody knows minimum cost anyway. The budget shows a cost figure of $4.2
million , a figure that must not be exceeded. If you want to keep your contract,
you better stay considerably below this figure.
Turning into Fuzzy LP Model

Max λ
Comparison Fuzzy and non Fuzzy solution

As can be seen from the solution, "leeway" has


been provided with respect to all constraints and at
additional cost of 3.2%.

The main advantage, compared to the unfuzzy problem formulation, is the fact that the
decision maker is not forced into a precise formulation because of mathematical reasons
even though he or she might only be able or willing to describe the problem in fuzzy terms.
Fuzzy MOLP
• Fuzzy goals and fuzzy constraints can be defined precisely as fuzzy
sets in the space of alternatives.
• A fuzzy decision, then, may be viewed as an intersection of the given
goals and constraints.
• A maximizing decision is defined as the set of points in the space of
alternatives at which the membership function of a fuzzy decision
attains its maximum value
MOLP

and correspondingly
Example
Example (cont.)
Another Example
• A company manufactures two products 1 and 2 on given capacities.
• Product 1 yields a profit of $2 per piece and product 2 of $1 per piece
. Product 2 can be exported, yielding a revenue of $2 per piece in
foreign countries; product 1 needs imported raw materials of $1 per
piece .
• Two goals are established: (1) profit maximization and (2) maximum
improvement of the balance of trade, that is, maximum difference of
exports minus imports.
• This problem can be modeled as follows:
Another Example
• Crisp LP
 1 2 x1
max Z ( x)  ( )( ) (z1 , z 2 )  (14,7) at (7,0)
2 1 x2
 x1  3x2  21 (z1 , z 2 )  (3,21) at (3.4,0.2)
x1  3x2  27
4 x1  3x2  45
3 x1  x2  30
x1 , x2  0
Example cont’d
• Fuzzy Objective function ( keep constraints crisp)

0 z1 ( x)  3
z ( x)  (3)
U1 ( x)  1 - 3  z1 ( x)  14
14  (3)
1 z1 ( x)  14

0 z 2 ( x)  7
z 2 ( x)  7
U 2 ( x)  7  z1 ( x)  21
21  7
1 z1 ( x)  21
Example cont’d
• Example A cont’d

max 
17   1 2 x1
( )( )( )  x1  3x2  21
14 2 1 x2
x1  3 x2  27
  0.74 4 x1  3 x2  45
(z1 , z 2 )  (17.38,4.58) 3x1  x2  30
at (5.03,7.32 ) x1 , x2  0

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy