In order to make the comprehensive decision-making results more consistent with the actual situation, a fuzzy comprehensive decision-making model with fuzzy combined weighting is developed in this paper. The fuzzy combined weighting method (FCWM) is proposed in the model to determine the weights of decision factors (indexes). The subjective weight and objective weight are combined in the FCWM to reduce the decision error caused by either using subjective weight or objective weight alone. In addition, the fuzziness of combined weights is taken into account in FCWM to make the decision-making results more realistic. The fuzzy structured element is used to express fuzzy numbers in the model. The analysis algorithm of fuzzy comprehensive decision based on the expression of fuzzy structured element is given to solve the problem of complex operations among fuzzy numbers. The decision model was applied to the order of metal mine gob management. It provides guidance for gob management reasonably and orderly. The research results also provide a new idea for the determination of weights in other fuzzy analysis models.
De LucaA., TerminiS., A definition of nonprobabilistic entropy in the setting of fuzzy sets theory, Information and Control20 (1972), 301–312.
2.
LeonetiA.B., Utility function for modeling group multicriteria decision making problems as games, Operations Research Perspectives3 (2016), 21–26.
3.
AzarnivandA., Hashemi-MadaniF.S. and BanihabibM.E., Extended fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in water and environmental management (case study: Lake Urmia Basin, Iran), Environmental Earth Sciences1 (2015), 13–26.
4.
AfshariA.R., YusuffR.M. and DerayatifarA.R., An application of Delphi method for eliciting criteria in personnel selection problem, Scientific Research and Essays33 (2012), 2927–2935.
5.
LeeA.H.I., HuangT.-H. and KangH.-Y., A priority mix planning model for semiconductor fabrication under an uncertain information environment, Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences29(2) (2008), 377–400.
6.
HaqA.N. and KannanG., An integrated approach for selecting a vendor using grey relational analysis, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making5(2) (2006), 277–295.
CasquilhoJ.P. and RegoF.C., Discussing landscape compositional scenarios generated with maximization of non-expected utility decision models based on weighted entropies, Entropy19(2) (2017), 1–9.
9.
NelsonC.A., A scoring model for flexible manufacturing system project selection, European Journal of Operational Research24 (1986), 346–359.
10.
WangC.Y. and WeiN., Study and application of the life-cycle cost control model of water conservancy and hydropower project based on entropy and FAHP, Advanced Materials Research1046 (2014), 564–568.
11.
AikhueleD.O. and TuranF.M., Extended TOPSIS model for solving multi-attribute decision making problems in engineering, Decision Science Letters6(4) (2017), 365–376.
12.
TrinkūnienėE., PodvezkoV., ZavadskasE.K. and JoksienėI., VinogradovaI., TrinkūnasV., Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja30(1) (2017), 1152–1180.
13.
GuoS., SuZ. and WangL., Method of structured element in fuzzy analysis and calculation, Mohu Xitong yu Shuxue18(3) (2004), 68–75.
14.
GuoS.C. and ZhaoY., Transform group of monotonic functions with the same monotonicity on [–1, 1] and operations of fuzzy numbers, Annals of Data Science2(3) (2015), 281–291.
15.
YükselI. and DağdevirenM., Using the analytic network process(ANP) in a SWOT analysis-A case study for a textile firm, Information Sciences177 (2007), 3364–3382.
16.
BeckerJ., BeckerA. and SałabunW., Construction and use of the ANP decision model taking into account the experts’ competenceProcedia Computer Science112 (2017), 2269–2279.
17.
YeJ.B., ShenL.J. and GuP., Study of the integrated evaluation index system of the design of energy-saving building and the optimization of these designs based on FAHP-entropy weight, Applied Mechanics and Materials357-360 (2013), 2859–2864.
18.
TongK.W., KwongC.K. and IpK.W., Optimization of process conditions for the transfer molding of electronic packages, Journal of Materials Processing Technology138 (2003), 361–365.
19.
DalkeyN. and HelmerO., An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of experts, Management Science3 (1963), 458–467.
20.
OnuP., QuanX., XuL., OrjiI.J. and OnuE., Evaluation of sustainable acid rain control options utilizing a fuzzy TOPSIS multi-criteria decision analysis model frame work, Journal of Cleaner Production141 (2017), 612–625.
21.
LiuP. and QinX., Power average operators of linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and their application to multiple-attribute decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems32(1) (2017), 1029–1043.
22.
WeiQ. and ChenX., Average cost criterion induced by the regular utility function for continuous-time Markov decision processes, Discrete Event Dynamic Systems27(3) (2017), 501–524.
23.
WanS., Power average operators of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and application to multi-attribute group decision making, Applied Mathematical Modelling37(6) (2013), 4112–4126.
24.
WuT., LiL., LiangZ., MaoT. and ShaoW., Risk assessment on constructors during over-water riprap based on entropy weight and FAHP, Journal of Physics: Conference Series870(1) (2017), 012–024.
25.
LaarhovenP.J.M.V. and PedryczW., A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy Sets Syst11(1-3) (1983), 199–227.
26.
YaoY.Y., WongS.K.M. and LingrasP., A decision-theoretic rough set model, The 5th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, 1990.
27.
GongZ. and ChaiR., Covering multigranulation trapezoidal fuzzy decision-theoretic rough fuzzy set models and applications, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems31 (2016), 1621–1633.
28.
SuZ.X., A hybrid fuzzy approach to fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making10(4) (2011), 695–711.
