Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-criteria Based Selection of Ship-Based Ballast Water Treatment Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Reliability and Maintainability Methods and Engineering Applications

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Reliability Engineering ((RELIABILITY))

  • 370 Accesses

Abstract

The reality of selecting an acceptable ballast water treatment technology is a daunting task for end-users, due to availability of numerous treatment options and their efficacy in given ship-types and ballast voyages. Six treatment systems have been selected from the two generic treatment technology groups (physical solid liquid separation and disinfection), and are considered as the decision-making alternatives in the proposed model. The proposed model involves the application of the Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), in the decision-making analysis. The TOPSIS technique has been applied to obtain the performance ratings of the decision alternatives using linguistic terms parameterised with triangular fuzzy numbers. A sensitivity study is also conducted to identify the effects of changes in input data, and test the suitability of the developed model in decision-making analysis of ballast water treatment systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lloyd’s Register (2007) Ballast water treatment technology: current status. London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng CH, Lin Y (2002) Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142(1):174–186

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci 17(4):B-141

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen CB, Klein CM (1997) An efficient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 88(1):51–67

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang TC, Chang TH (2007) Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 33(4):870–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ding JF, Liang GS (2005) Using fuzzy MCDM to select partners of strategic alliances for liner shipping. Inf Sci 173(1–3):197–225

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Schinas O (2007, September) Examining the use and application of multi-criteria decision making techniques in safety assessment. In: International symposium on maritime safety, security and environmental protection. Athens, pp 20–21

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shyi-Ming C (1997) A new method for tool steel materials selection under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 92(3):265–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bell ML, Hobbs BF, Ellis H (2003) The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socioecon Plann Sci 37(4):289–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen CT (2001) A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center. Fuzzy Sets Syst 118(1):65–73

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Asuquo MP, Wang J, Zhang L, Phylip-Jones G (2019) Application of a multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) model for selecting appropriate maintenance strategy for marine and offshore machinery operations. Ocean Eng 179:246–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsaur SH, Chang TY, Yen CH (2002) The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tour Manage 23(2):107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zimmermann HJ (1991) Fuzzy set theory and its applications, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, Boston

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu J, Yang JB, Wang J, Sii HS, Wang YM (2004) Fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning approach for safety analysis. Int J Gen Syst 33(2–3):183–204

    Google Scholar 

  15. Karwowski W, Mital A (1986) Potential applications of fuzzy sets in industrial safety engineering. Fuzzy Sets Syst 19(2):105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bowles JB, Peláez CE (1995) Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 50(2):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang J (1997) A subjective methodology for safety analysis of safety requirements specifications. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 5(3):418–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. In: Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 289–486

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bottani E, Rizzi A (2006) A fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to support outsourcing of logistics services. Supply Chain Manage Int J 11(4):294–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tzeng GH, Huang JJ (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC Press

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Yoon K, Hwang C (1995) Multi-attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage Publications, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Jee DH, Kang KJ (2000) A method for optimal material selection aided with decision making theory. Mater Des 21(3):199–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27(10):963–973

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Olson DL (2004) Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Math Comput Model 40(7–8):721–727

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Dağdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kılınç N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8143–8151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dubois D, Prade H (1997) Recent models of uncertainty and imprecision as a basis for decision theory: toward less normative frameworks. In: Hollnagel E, Mancini G, Woods DD (eds) Intelligent decision support in process environment. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. IMO (2004) International convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments. International Maritime Organisation, London. Can be accessed at: http://globallast.imo.org/index.asp?page=mepc.htm&menu=true

  29. Pam ED (2010) Risk-based framework for ballast water safety management, PhD thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Liverpool Logistics, Offshore and Marine (LOOM) Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK

    Eugene Pam, Alan Wall, Zaili Yang, Eddie Blanco-Davis & Jin Wang

Authors
  1. Eugene Pam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan Wall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zaili Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eddie Blanco-Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jin Wang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for System Reliability and Safety, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Yu Liu

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Dong Wang

  3. Center for System Reliability and Safety, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Jinhua Mi

  4. Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    He Li

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pam, E., Wall, A., Yang, Z., Blanco-Davis, E., Wang, J. (2023). Multi-criteria Based Selection of Ship-Based Ballast Water Treatment Technologies. In: Liu, Y., Wang, D., Mi, J., Li, H. (eds) Advances in Reliability and Maintainability Methods and Engineering Applications. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28859-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28859-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28858-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28859-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation