Grey relational analysis method for typhoon vulnerability assessment of civil engineering structures based on the 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic number

Abstract

As one of the severe natural disasters, typhoon hazard brings tremendous tragedy to human beings. The foreland in the southeast of China is one of the most typhoon prone areas in the world. There are amount of damage of civil engineering structures induced by typhoon every year. Especially for the spacious villages, the low-rise buildings are vulnerable to typhoon so that many of them are destroyed regionally. The typhoon vulnerability assessment of civil engineering structures is a classical multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) issues. In this paper, the 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic number grey relational analysis (2TLNN-GRA) method is built based on the grey relational analysis (GRA) and 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic sets (2TLNSs) with incomplete weight information. For deriving the weight information of the attribute, an optimization model is built on the basis of the GRA, by which the attribute weights can be decided. Then, the optimal alternative is chosen through calculating largest relative relational degree from the 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic number positive ideal solution (2TLNNPIS) which considers both the largest grey relational coefficient (GRC) from the 2TLNNPIS and the smallest GRC form 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic number negative ideal solution (2TLNN NIS). Then, combine the traditional fuzzy GRA model with 2TLNNSs information, the 2TLNN-GRA method is established and the computing steps for MAGDM are built. Finally, a numerical example for typhoon vulnerability assessment of civil engineering structures has been given and some comparisons is used to illustrate advantages of 2TLNN-GRA method.

Retraction: Grey relational analysis method for typhoon vulnerability assessment of civil engineering structures based on the 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic number

“…Further editorial assessment identified concerns regarding the integrity of the peer review process. In light of these issues, the PLOS ONE Editors retract this article [ 1 ].…”