International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

Neutrosophic Goal Programming Technique

and its Application
Samir Dey1, Tapan Kumar Roy2
1
Department of Mathematics, Asansol Engineering College
Vivekananda Sarani, Asansol-713305, West Bengal, India.
2
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur.
P.O.-Botanic Garden, Howrah-711103, West Bengal, India.

Abstract This paper develops a multi-objective
Neutrosophic Goal Optimization technique for
optimizing the design of truss structure with multiple
objectives subject to a specified set of constraints. In
this optimum design formulation, the objective
functions are weight and the deflection; the design
variables are the cross-sections of the bar; the
constraints are the stress in member. The classical
three bar truss structure is presented here in to
demonstrate the efficiency of the neutrosophic goal
programming approach. The model is numerically
illustrated by Neutrosophic Goal Optimization
technique with different aggregation method. The
result shows that the Neutrosophic Goal
Optimization technique is very efficient in finding
the best optimal solutions.
Keywords - Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Goal
Programming, Structural Optimization.
I. INTRODUCTION
In present day, problems are there with different
types of uncertainties which cannot be solved by
classical theory of mathematics. Fuzzy set (FS)
theory has long been introduced to deal with inexact
and imprecise data by Zadeh[2], Later on the fuzzy
set theory was used by Bellman and Zadeh[3]to the
decision making problem. A few works have been
doneas an application of fuzzy set theoryon
structural design. Several researchers like Wang et
al.[5] first applied -cut method to structural designs
wherevarious design levels were used to solve the
non-linear problems. In this regard, a generalized
fuzzy number has been usedDey et al.[6]in context
of a non-linear structural design optimization. Dey
et al.[8] developed parameterized t-norm based
fuzzy optimization method for optimum structural
design.
In such extension, Intuitionistic fuzzy set which
is one of the generalizations of fuzzy set theory and
was characterized by a membership, a non-
membership and a hesitancy function was first
introduced by Atanassove[1]. In fuzzy set theory the
degree of acceptance is only considered but in case
of IFS it is characterized by degree of membership
and non-membership in such a way that their sum
is less or equal to one. Dey et al.[7] solved two bar
truss non-linear problem by using intuitionistic fuzzy
optimization problem. Again,Dey et al. [9] used
intuitionistic fuzzy optimization technique to solve
multi objective structural design. Intuitionistic fuzzy
sets consider both truth and falsity membership and
can only handle incomplete information but not the
information which is connected with indeterminacy
or inconsistency.
In due course, any generalization of fuzzy set
failed to handle problems with indeterminate or
inconsistent information. To overcome this,
Smarandache [4] proposed a new theory , namely,
neutrosophic logic, by adding another independent
membership function named as indeterminacy
membership I x along with truth membership
T x and falsity F x membership functions.
Neutrosophic set is a generalization of intuitionistic
fuzzy sets. If hesitancy degree H x of
intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the indeterminacy
membership degree I x of neutrosophic sets are
equal, then neutrosophic set will become the
intuitionistic fuzzy set. The components of
neutrosophic set, namely truth-membership degree,
indeterminacy-membership degree and falsity-
membership degree, were suitable to represent
indeterminacy and inconsistent information.
Goal Programming (GP) models was originally
introduced by Charnes and Copper [11] in early
1977. Multiple and conflicting goals can used in
goal programming. Also, GP allows simultaneous
solution of a system of complex objectives, and the
solution of the problem requires ascertaining among
these multiple objectives. In this case, the model
must be solved in such a way, that each of the
objective to be achieved. Dey et al.[10]proposed
intuitionistic goal programming technique on
nonlinear structural model. The Neutrosophic
approach for goal programming in structural design
is rare. This is the first time NSGO technique is in
application to multi-objective structural design. The
present study investigates computational algorithm
for solving multi-objective structural problem by
single valued generalized NSGO technique. The
results are compared numerically for different
aggregation method of NSGO technique. From our
numerical result, it has been seen that the best result
obtained for geometric aggregation method for

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 6

 International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

NSGO technique in the perspective of structural Let a set X be a space of points (objects) and
optimization technique. x X .A neutrosophic set A%n in X is defined by a
II. MULTI-OBJECTIVE STRUCTURAL MODEL truth membership function TA x , an indeterminacy-
In the design problem of the structure i.e. lightest membership function IA x and a falsity
weight of the structure and minimum deflection of
the loaded joint that satisfies all stress constraints in membership function FA x and having the form
members of the structure. In truss structure A%n x, TA x , I A x , FA x x X . TA x ,
system ,the basic parameters (including allowable
stress etc.) are known and the optimizations target I A x and FA x are real standard or non-standard
is that identify the optimal bar truss cross-section subsets of ]0 ,1 [ .That is
area so that the structure is of the smallest total
weight with minimum nodes displacement in a given TA x : X ]0 ,1 [
load conditions . IA x : X ]0 ,1 [
The multi-objective structural model can be
expressed as FA x : X ]0 ,1 [
Minimize WT A (1) There is no restriction on the sum of
minimize A TA x , I A x and FA x so
,
subject to A 0 sup TA x sup I A x sup FA x 3 .
min max
A A A
T
D. Single Valued Neutrosophic Set
where A A1 , A2 ,..., An are the design variables Let a set X be the universe of discourse. A
for the cross section, n is the group number of design single valued neutrosophic set A%n over X is an
variables for the cross section object having the form
n
bar , WT A AL is the total weight of the %
An
x, TA x , I A x , FA x x X where
i 1 i i i
structure , A is the deflection of the loaded TA : X 0,1 , I A : X 0,1 and
joint ,where Li , Ai and i are the bar length, cross FA : X 0,1 with 0 TA x IA x FA x 3
th
section area and density of the i group bars for all x X.
respectively. A is the stress constraint and is
E. Single Valued Generalized Neutrosophic Set
allowable stress of the group bars under various
Let a set X be the universe of discourse. A
conditions, Amin and Amax are the lower and upper
single valued neutrosophic set A%n over X is an
bounds of cross section area A respectively.
object having the form
III. MATHEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES A%n x, TA x , I A x , FA x x X where
A. Fuzzy Set TA : X 0, w1 , I A : X 0, w2 and
Let X be a fixed set. A fuzzy set A set of X is FA : X 0, w3 with
an object having the form
0 TA x IA x FA x w1 w2 w3 where
A% x, TA x : x X where the function
w1 , w2 , w3 0,1 for all x X.
TA : X 0,1 defined the truth membership of the
element x X to the set A . F. Complement of Neutrosophic Set
Complement of a single valued neutrosophic set
B. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set A is denoted by c A and is defined by
Let a set X be fixed. An intuitionistic fuzzy set or
Tc x FA x
IFS A%i in X is an object of the form A

A%i X , TA x , FA x x X where Ic A x 1 FA x

TA : X 0,1 and FA : X 0,1 define the truth Fc A x TA x

membership and falsity membership respectively,
for every element of x X , 0 TA x FA x 1 .
C. Neutrosophic Set
G. Union of Neutrosophic Sets
The union of two single valued neutrosophic sets
A and B is a single valued neutrosophic set C ,
written as C A B ,whose truth membership,

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 7

 International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership 0 if zi ti

functions are given by
zi ti
Tc A x max TA x , TB x if ti zi ti ai
di
Ic x max I A x , I B x I zi zi
A ti ai zi
if ti di zi ti ai
Fc A x min FA x , FB x for all x X ai di
0 if zi ti ai
H. Intersection of Neutrosophic Sets
The intersection of two single valued 0 if zi ti
neutrosophic sets A and B is a single valued
zi ti
neutrosophic set C , written as C A B ,whose Fzi zi if ti zi ti ci
truth membership, indeterminacy-membership and ci
falsity-membership functions are given by 1 if zi ti ci
Tc A x min TA x , TB x
To maximize the degree of acceptance and
Ic x min I A x , I B x indeterminacy of nonlinear goal programming
A
(NGP) objectives and constraints also to minimize
Fc A x max FA x , FB x for all x X degree of rejection of NGP objectives and
constraints ,
IV. MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS Maximize Tzi zi , i 1, 2,...., k (3)

I. Neutrosophic Goal Programming Maximize I zi zi , i 1, 2,...., k

Goal programming can be written as Minimize Fzi zi , i 1, 2,...., k
T
Find x x1 , x2 ,..., xn Subject to
to achieve: 0 Tzi zi I zi zi Fzi zi 3, i 1, 2,...., k
zi ti i 1, 2,..., k
Tzi zi 0, I zi zi 0, Fzi zi I 1, 2,..., k
Subject to x X where ti are scalars and represent
the target achievement levels of the objective Tzi zi I zi zi , I 1, 2,...., k
functions that the decision maker wishes to attain Tzi zi Fzi zi , i 1, 2,..., k
provided, X is feasible set of constraints.
The nonlinear goal programming problem can be gj x bj , j 1, 2,....., m
written as xi 0, i 1, 2,....., n
T
Find x x1 , x2 ,..., xn where Tzi zi , I zi zi and Fzi zi are truth
So as to membership function indeterminacy membership
Minimize zi with target value ti ,acceptance function ,falsity membership function of
tolerance ai ,indeterminacy tolerance d i rejection neutrosophic decision set respectively.
tolerance ci Now the neutrosophic goal programming (NSGP) in
(2) model (3) can be represented by crisp programming
x X model using truth membership, indeterminacy
g j x bj , j 1, 2,....., m membership and falsity membership functions as
Maximize , Maximize , Minimize
xi 0, i 1, 2,....., n with truth-membership, (4)
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership Tzi zi , i 1, 2,..., k
functions
I zi zi , i 1, 2,..., k
1 if zi ti
Fzi zi , i 1, 2,..., k
ti ai zi
Tzi zi if ti zi ti ai zi ti , i 1, 2,....., k
ai
0 3;
0 if zi ti ai
, 0, 1;
gj x b j , j 1, 2,....., m
xi 0, i 1, 2,...., n

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 8

 International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

V. SOLUTION OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE STRUCTURAL

OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM (MOSOP) BY
NEUTROSOPHIC GOAL OPTIMIZATION
TECHNIQUE
The multi-objective neutrosophic fuzzy structural
model can be expressed as
Minimize WT A with target value WT0 ,truth
tolerance aWT ,indeterminacy tolerance dWT and
rejection tolerance cWT (7)

Fig.1.Truth membership, Indeterminacy membership and

minimize A with target value 0 ,truth tolerance
Falsity membership function of zi a0 ,indeterminacy tolerance d 0
and rejection
With the help of truth, indeterminacy, falsity tolerance c 0
membership function the neutrosophic goal
programming problem (4) based on arithmetic subject to A
aggregation operator can be formulated as Amin A Amax
1 1 where A A1 , A2 ,...., An
T
are the design variables
Minimize (5)
3 for the cross section, n is the group number of design
zi ti ai 1 , i 1, 2,..., k variables for the cross section bar.
To solve this problem we first calculate truth,
zi ti di , i 1,2,..., k indeterminacy and falsity membership function of
zi ti ai ai di , i 1, 2,..., k objective as follows
1 if WT A WT0
zi ti ci , i 1, 2,..., k WT0 aWT WT A
TWT ( A) WT A if WT0 WT A WT0 aWT
zi ti , i 1, 2,....., k aWT
0 3; 0 if WT A WT0 aWT

0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ; 0 if WT A WT0

WT A WT0
gj b j , j 1, 2,..., m; if WT0 WT A WT0 aWT
dWT
IWT WT A
xi 0, i 1, 2,...., n A
WT0 aWT WT A
if WT0 dWT WT A WT0 aWT
With the help of truth, indeterminacy, falsity aWT dWT

membership function the neutrosophic goal 0 if WT A WT0 aWT

programming problem (4) based on geometric

aggregation operator can be formulated as 1
where dWT
1 1
Minimize 3 1 1 (6)
aWT cWT
zi ti ai 1 , i 1, 2,..., k
0 if WT A WT0
zi ti di , i 1,2,..., k
WT A WT0
FWT WT A if WT0 WT A WT0 cWT
zi ti ai ai di , i 1, 2,..., k A
cWT
zi ti ci , i 1, 2,..., k 1 if WT A WT0 cWT
zi ti , i 1, 2,....., k and
0 3; 1 if A 0

0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ; 0 a0 A

T A
A if 0 A 0 a0
gj b j , j 1, 2,..., m; a0

xi 0, i 1, 2,...., n 0 if A 0 a0

Now these non-linear programming problems (5) 0 if A 0

and (6) can be easily solved by an appropriate
A 0
mathematical programming to give solution of if 0 A 0 a
d
multi-objective non-linear programming problem (2) I A
A
by neutrosophic goal optimization approach. 0 a WT A
if 0 d A 0 a
a d
0 if A 0 a

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 9

 International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

1 0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ;

where d
1 1 gj b j , j 1, 2,..., m;
a c
xi 0, i 1, 2,...., n
0 if A 0 With the help of truth, indeterminacy, falsity
A 0
membership function the neutrosophic goal
F A
A if 0 A 0 c programming problem (8) based on geometric
c
aggregation operator can be formulated as
1 if A 0 c Model II
According to neutrosophic goal optimization Minimize 3 1 1 (10)
technique using truth, indeterminacy and falsity
WT A WT0 aWT 1 ,
membership function, MOSOP (7) can be
formulated as WT A WT0 dWT ,
Maximize , Maximize , Minimize
(8) WT A WT0 aWT aWT dWT ,
WT A WT0 aWT 1 ,
WT A WT0 cWT ,
WT A WT0 dWT ,
WT A WT0 ,
WT A WT0 aWT aWT dWT , A a 1 ,
0
WT A WT0 cWT , A d ,
0
WT A WT0 , A a a d ,
0
A a 1 ,
0 A 0 c ,
A d ,
0 A 0 ,
A 0 a a d , 0 3;
A 0 c , 0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ;
A 0 , gj b j , j 1, 2,..., m;
0 3; xi 0, i 1, 2,...., n
0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ; Now these non-linear programming Model-I, II can
be easily solved through an appropriate
gj x b j , j 1, 2,....., m mathematical programming to give solution of
xj 0, j 1, 2,...., n multi-objective non-linear programming problem (7)
With the help of truth, indeterminacy, falsity by neutrosophic goal optimization approach.
membership function the neutrosophic goal
VI. NUMERICAL ILLUSTRATION
programming problem (8) based on arithmetic
aggregation operator can be formulated as A well-known three bar planer truss is considered to
Model I minimize weight of the structure WT A1 , A2 and
1 1 minimize the deflection A1 , A2 at a loading point
Minimize (9)
3 of a statistically loaded three bar planer truss subject
to stress constraints on each of the truss members
WT A WT0 aWT 1 ,
WT A WT0 dWT ,
WT A WT0 aWT aWT dWT ,
WT A WT0 cWT ,
WT A WT0 ,
A 0 a 1 ,
A 0 d ,
A 0 a a d ,
Fig 2. Design of three bar planer truss
A 0 c ,
A , The multi-objective optimization problem can be
0
stated as follows
0 3;

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 10

 International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

Minimize WT A1 , A2 L 2 2 A1 A2 (11) According to neutrosophic goal optimization

technique using truth, indeterminacy and falsity
PL membership function ,MOSOP (12) can be
Minimize A1 , A2 formulated as
E A1 2 A2
Maximize , Maximize , Minimize (13)
Subject to
2 2 A1 A2 4 21 ,
P 2 A1 A2
T
1 A1 , A2 1 ; 1
2 A12 2 A1 A2 2 2 A1 A2 4 ,
0.5 0.22
P T
2 A1 , A2 2 ; 1
A1 2 A2 2 2 A1 A2 4 2 2 ,
0.5 0.22
PA2 C
3 A1 , A2 3 ; 2 2 A1 A2 4 4.5 ,
2 A12 2 A1 A2
2 2 A1 A2 4,
Aimin Ai Aimax i 1, 2
20
where P applied load ; material 2.5 2.5 1 ,
density ; L length ; E Youngs A1 2 A2
modulus ; A1 Cross section of bar-1 and bar- 20 1
2.5 ,
3; A2 Cross section of bar-2; is deflection of A1 2 A2 0.4 0.22
T T
loaded joint. 1 and 2 are maximum 20 1
2.5 2.5 2.5 ,
allowable tensile stress for bar 1 and bar 2 A1 2 A2 0.4 0.22
C
respectively, 3 is maximum allowable 20
2.5 4.5 ,
compressive stress for bar 3. A1 2 A2
This multi objective structural model can be
expressed as neutrosophic fuzzy model as 20
2.5,
Minimize WT A1 , A2 L 2 2 A1 A2 with A1 2 A2
target value 4 102 KN ,truth tolerance 0 3;
2
2 10 KN ,indeterminacy tolerance 0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ;
1 2
10 KN and rejection 20 2 A1 A2
0.5 0.22 20;
tolerance 4.5 102 KN (12) 2 A12 2 A1 A2
PL 20
Minimize A1 , A2 with target 20;
E A1 2 A2 A1 2 A2
value 2.5 10 7 m ,truth 20 A2
7 15;
tolerance 2.5 10 m ,indeterminacy tolerance 2 A12 2 A1 A2
1
10 7 m and rejection tolerance 0.1 Ai 5 i 1, 2
0.4 0.22
With the help of truth, indeterminacy, falsity
4.5 10 7 m
membership function the generalized neutrosophic
Subject to
goal programming problem (13) based on arithmetic
P 2 A1 A2 aggregation operator can be formulated as
T
1 A1 , A2 1 ; Model -I
2 A12 2 A1 A2
1 1
P T
Minimize
2 A1 , A2 2 ; 3
A1 2 A2
2 2 A1 A2 4 21 ,
PA2 C
3 A1 , A2 3 ; 1
2 A12 2 A1 A2 2 2 A1 A2 4 ,
0.5 0.22
Aimin Ai Aimax i 1, 2

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 11

 International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

1 1
2 2 A1 A2 4 2 2 , 2 2 A1 A2 4 2 2 ,
0.5 0.22 0.5 0.22

2 2 A1 A2 4 4.5 , 2 2 A1 A2 4 4.5 ,

2 2 A1 A2 4, 2 2 A1 A2 4,
20 20
2.5 2.5 1 , 2.5 2.5 1 ,
A1 2 A2 A1 2 A2
20 1 20 1
2.5 , 2.5 ,
A1 2 A2 0.4 0.22 A1 2 A2 0.4 0.22

20 1 20 1
2.5 2.5 2.5 , 2.5 2.5 2.5 ,
A1 2 A2 0.4 0.22 A1 2 A2 0.4 0.22

20 20 4.5
2.5 4.5 , 2.5 ,
A1 2 A2 A1 2 A2 w3

20 20
2.5, 2.5,
A1 2 A2 A1 2 A2
0 3; 0 3;
0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ; 0,1 , 0,1 , 0,1 ;
20 2 A1 A2 20 2 A1 A2
20; 20;
2 A12 2 A1 A2 2 A12 2 A1 A2
20 20
20; 20;
A1 2 A2 A1 2 A2
20 A2 20 A2
15; 15;
2 A12 2 A1 A2 2 A12 2 A1 A2
0.1 Ai 5 i 1, 2 0.1 Ai 5 i 1, 2
With the help of truth, indeterminacy, falsity Now these non-linear programming problems
membership function the neutrosophic goal Model-I,II can be easily solved by an appropriate
programming problem (13) based on geometric mathematical programming to give solution of
aggregation operator can be formulated as multi-objective non-linear programming problem
Model II (12) by generalized neutrosophic goal optimization
Minimize 3 1 1 (14) approach and the results are shown in the table 1 as
follows. Here we get best solution in geometric
2 2 A1 A2 4 21 , aggregation method for objective functions.

1
2 2 A1 A2 4 ,
0.5 0.22

Table 1: Input data for crisp model (11)

Maximum Maximum
Volume allowable allowable Youngs Aimin and Aimax
Applied Length
density tensile compressive modulus E of cross section
load P L
T C of bars
stress stress
KN KN / m3 m KN / m2 4 2
10 m
KN / m2 KN / m2
Aimin 0.1
20 100 1 20 15 2 107
Aimax 5, i 1, 2

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 12

 International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends (IJCOT) Volume 41 Number 1- March 2017

Table 2: Comparison solution of MOSOP (2) based on different Aggregation

A1 A2 WT A1 , A2 A1 , A2
Methods
10 4 m2 10 4 m 2 102 KN 10 7 m
Neutosophic optimization
(NSGP)based on Arithmetic 5 0.4321468 4.904282 3.564333
Aggregation
Neutosophic optimization (NSGP)
5 1.109954 4.462428 3.044273
based on Geometric Aggregation

[2] L.A.Zadeh, Fuzzy set.Information and Control, 8(3), 338-

VII. CONCLUSIONS
The research study investigates that
neutrosophic goal programming can be utilized to
optimize a nonlinear structural problem. . The results
obtained for different aggregation method of the
undertaken problem show that the best result is
achieved using geometric aggregation method. The
concept of neutrosophic optimization technique
allows one to define a degree of truth membership,
which is not a complement of degree of falsity;
rather, they are independent with degree of
indeterminacy.As we have considered a non-linear
three bar truss design problem and find out
minimum weight of the structure as well as
minimum deflection of loaded joint, the results of
this study may lead to the development of effective
neutrosophic technique for solving other model of
nonlinear programming problem in different field.
Conflict of interests: The authors declare that there
is no conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
[1] K.T.Atanassov., Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems,20(1), 87-96,1986
353,1965.
[3] R.E.Bellman and L.A.Zadeh,Decision-making in a fuzzy
environment. Management science, 17(4), B-141,1970.
[4] F.Smarandache,Neutrosophy, neutrosophic probability, set
and logic, Amer. Res. Press, Rehoboth, USA,105,1998.
[5] G.Y.Wang and W.Q. Wang, Fuzzy optimum design of
structure. Engineering Optimization, 8, 291-300,1985.
[6] S.Dey and T.K. Roy.,A Fuzzy programming Technique for
Solving Multi-objective Structural Problem. International
Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing, 4(5), 24,2014.
[7] S.Dey and T.K. Roy., K.Optimized solution of two bar truss
design using intuitionistic fuzzy optimization
technique. International Journal of Information
Engineering and Electronic Business, 6(4), 45-51,2014.
[8] S.Dey and T.K. Roy., Multi-objective structural design
problem optimization using parameterized t-norm based
fuzzy optimization programming Technique. Journal of
Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 30(2), 971-982,2016.
[9] S.Dey and T.K.Roy,Multi-objective structural optimization
using fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy optimization
technique. InternationalJournal of Intelligent systems and
applications, 7(5), 57-62,2015.
[10] S.Dey and T.K. Roy,Intuitionistic Fuzzy Goal Programming
Technique for Solving Non-Linear Multi-objective
Structural Problem. Journal of Fuzzy Set Valued
Analysis, 2015(3), 179-193,2015.
[11] A.Charnes and W.W.Cooper, Goal Programming and
Multiple Objectives Optimizations. European Journal of
Operational Research (1977),1,39- 54,1977.

ISSN: 2249-2593 http://www.ijcotjournal.org Page 13