Volume 4, No.

8, August 2013
Journal of Global Research in Computer Science
REVIEW ARTICLE
Available Online at www.jgrcs.info

GOAL GEOMETRIC PROGRAMMING PROBLEM (G2 P2) WITH CRISP AND

IMPRECISE TARGETS
Payel Ghosh*1, Tapan Kumar Roy2
*1

Department of Mathematics, Adamas Institute of Technology, P.O.-Jagannathpur,

Barbaria, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal - 700126, India,
[email protected]
2
Department of Mathematics, Bengal Engineering and Science University,
Shibpur, P.O.-Botanic Garden, Howrah, West Bengal-711103, India,
[email protected]

Abstract: There are very common and widely used forms of solving linear and non-linear Goal Programming Problem. They are Archimedean,
Lexicographic and MINMAX etc. This paper proposes a Geometric Programming method to solve a non-linear Goal Programming Problem. In
particular, it demonstrates a new approach goal geometric programming in both crisp and imprecise environment. There is a numerical example
and also an application of this method in two-bar truss problem. Comparison with Kuhn-Tucker conditions and crisp goal geometric
programming method in the numerical example, it shows the efficiency of this method. In this paper, we have described fuzzy goal geometric
programming and also implemented it on the same numerical example like crisp goal geometric programming and two bar truss problem.

INTRODUCTION
Linear goal programming is widely used in decision making
involving linear equations and multiple conflicting goals. In
this model, the best solution is achieved when the sum of
weighted deviations is minimal. But there are some real life
situations like production planning, location distribution,
risk management, chemical process design, pollution control
and other engineering design where equations may be nonlinear. For such type of mathematical model goal geometric
programming may be an excellent method.
It is worthwhile to mention that, to solve goal-programming
problems, the use of multi-objective optimization technique
is not new (Romero 1991[1], Steuer 1986[2]). Deb
(1999)[3] has developed an approach for solving non-linear
goal programming problems by multi-objective genetic
algorithms. Ojha et al. (2010[4][5]) has discussed geometric
programming method to solve multi-objective programming
problems using weighted sum method. Luptacik (2010)[6]
described elaborately about single objective geometric
programming and multi-objective geometric programming.
Previously Romero (1991)[1], Tamiz et al. (1995)[7] and
Tamiz and Jones (1997)[8] described weighted sum method
in linear goal programming problem but in this paper we
have used weighted sum method in goal programming
problem with non-linear equations and solved it using
geometric programming technique. Further Tamiz and Jones
(2010)[9] have developed goal programming problem and
applied it in health care and portfolio selection. Romero
(2004)[10] has described general structure of achievement
function in goal programming problem.
When goals are not precise, then fuzzy goals are introduced.
Narasiman (1980)[11] first introduced fuzzy set theory in
goal programming. Further the contribution of Tiwari et.al.
(1984)[12], Kim, Whang (1998)[13], Ramik (1996)[14], Li
(2012) [15], Ciptomulyono (2008) [16] are mentionable. Li,
Hu (2009)[17] have used weighted sum method in fuzzy
JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

multiple objective goal programming problem and further

developed it. Fuzzy goal programming has very extensive
applications like portfolio selection, water quality
management in river basin, structural optimization etc.
In this paper we have applied geometric programming
technique to solve a nonlinear goal programming problem.
There is a comparison of results between goal geometric
programming technique and nonlinear programming
technique applied on a numerical example. We have also
applied this technique in two-bar truss problem (Rao
1996)[18]. Apart from the crisp goal geometric
programming, fuzzy goal geometric programming is also
discussed here. Fuzzy goal geometric programming is
described here by the same numerical example and also
applied on the same application as in crisp goal geometric
programming.
Body Text:
Formulation of Multi-Objective programming:
A multi-objective non-linear programming can be written as
Find x = ( , .. )T
(1.1)
so as to Minimize:
(x) =
with
target
,
Minimize:
(x)
=
with target
,

Minimize:
(x)
=
with target
,
subject to (x) =
, r = 1, 2, 3 q
0.k=1, 2, 3 n
Where
are positive real numbers j=1, 2 m; i=1, 2...
;
and
i=1, 2... .

are real numbers

k=1, 2 n; j=1, 2 m;

21

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29

= Number of terms present in j0 th objective function.

>0
Goal programming gives pareto optimal solutions which is
already described in Romero (1991) [1]. Now we prove a
result concerning the pareto optimality of the solutions of
weighted non-linear goal programming problem.

= Number of terms present in r th constraint.

= Boundary value of the r th constraint.
In the above multi-objective programming model, there are
m number of minimizing objective functions, q number of
inequality type constraints and n number of strictly positive
decision variables.
Formulation of Goal programming from Multi-Objective
Programming:
Goal programming gives better results than ordinary multiobjective programming. To formulate the goal programming
problem from the multi-objective programming problem,
positive or negative deviations are minimized depending
upon objective functions and constraints, e.g., for
minimizing objective function positive deviation , for
maximizing objective function negative deviation, for
type constraint positive deviation, for type constraint
negative deviation is minimized.
From the multi-objective programming problem (1.1), goal
formulation is given below:
Minimize
+
(2.1)
subject to
(x) +
=
, j = 1,2 m
(x) +
=
, r = 1, 2 q
0, k=1, 2, 3 . n
,
,
,
0;
=0;
=0.
= Positive deviation of minimizing objective function.
= Negative deviation of minimizing objective function.
= Positive deviation of constraint.
= Negative deviation of constraint.
,
are boundary values of objective function and
constraint of (1.1).
The above model (2.1) can be transformed into
Minimize
+
(2.2)
subject to
(x) , j = 1,2 .m
(x) ,
r = 1, 2 q
0, k=1, 2, 3 . n
,
0.
The single solution like (x*,
, ), j =1,2m; r =1,2,q
minimize the objective (2.2) and satisfy the constraints (2.3),
(2.4), (2.5). But there are some cases where much more
minimized value is required for any particular objectives
or/and constraints. We usually tackle this situation by
introducing weights. Give biggest weight (priority) for that
deviation of the objective function or constraint for which
we want to get more minimized value.
Then weighted goal formulation is as follows:
Minimize
+
,
subject to
(x)
, j = 1, 2 .m
(x) , r = 1, 2 q
0, k=1, 2, 3 . n
and

= 1;

JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

,
> 0,

0,

Theorem:
The solution of the following weighted goal programming
problem
Minimize
,
subject to;
- di
, for i= 1, 2 ...
k
X= {
} S; di 0 for i= 1, 2 k
is pareto optimal if di for each functions to be minimized
have positive values at the optimum.
Proof: Let X* S with positive deviational vector d* (> 0)
be the solution of the following weighted goal programming
problem
Minimize
(3.1)
subject to;
- di
for i= 1,2
.. k
X= {
} S; di 0,for i= 1,2 k
If possible let X* is not Pareto optimal, so there exists a
vector X0 S with positive deviational variable vector d0
such that
i=1, 2
.. k (3.2)
<
for at least
one j
(3.3)
From (3.3)
>0;
Let
=
(>0)
____ (3.4)
We set
=
(>0) for i=1, 2 k (3.5)
and = max ( 0,
- ) 0 and i j (3.6)
Here
is the positive deviational variable corresponding to
X0 for i= 1,2 . k
From
(3.2),
____ (2.4)
Or, ____ (2.5)

i=1, 2 k
[Using (3.5)]
[As X* be the solution of (3.1), so
]
So
i.e.
j
(3.7)
From (3.6),
= max (0,
- )
so
=
if
- >0
= 0 if
0
Case 1: If
- > 0, then
=
[by (3.8)]

for i= 1, 2 k but i

(3.8)
(3.9)
-

22

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29

+(

[ by (3.4)]
=(
*
[As X be the solution of (3.1), so
]
So
(3.10)
So X0 satisfies the constraints of (3.1) [following (3.7)
(3.10)].
From (3.8)
=
- <
[
> 0]
So using (3.5)
i = 1, 2 . K
Case 2: If
0 then
- =
=
[ by (3.4)]
]
(3.11)
*
[As X be the solution of (3.1), so
]
So X0 satisfies the constraints of (3.1) [following (3.7)
(3.10)].
and
=0<
hence
< .
So using (3.5)
i = 1,2 . k
So for all positive weights Wi [for i= 1, 2 . k]
<
(3.12)
So from (3.7), (3.10), (3.11) and (3.12), we have seen
X0 is a solution of (3.1).
*

and

[by

> 0,

that

= 0; k= 1, 2 n.

Where

, j = 1, 2 m,

, r = 1, 2 q.

Numerical Example1:
A multi-objective goal programming problem
Minimize f1(x1, x2) = -1 -2
with target value 4,
Minimize f2(x1, x2) =2 -2 -3
with target value 50,
subject to
+
1,
,
0.

subject to

1
-

1,

1,

,
0.
Illustration:
Degree of difficulty=8-(4+1) = 3.
Dual of (5.1) is given by:
(4.1)
Maximize d ( ) =
[
1, r = 1, 2 q

>

> 0.

The model given by (4.1) can be transformed to the

corresponding dual geometric programming as:
Maximize d( )=

JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

= 0, j =1, 2 m,
= 0, r =1, 2 q,

The above multi-objective goal programming problem is

converted into single objective goal geometric programming
problem using deviations and giving the weights (priorities).
The formulation is given below:
Minimize
+
,
(5.1)

Dual form of Goal Geometric programming problem:

The model given by (4.1) is a normal geometric
programming problem and it can be solved by using primal
based algorithm for non-linear primal problem or dual
programming.

and

1, j = 1,2 .m
=1;

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Formulation of Goal Geometric programming problem

using weights:
A weighted goal-geometric programming problem can be
written as:
Find x= ( ,
.. )T, d=(
,
)T
-

It contradicts the fact that X is a solution of (3.1). Hence X

is Pareto optimal.

subject to

subject to
= 1,
-

such that

=
(5.1)
=0
(5.2)
=0
(5.3)
+
= 0 (5.4)
+
= 0 (5.5)
=
(5.6)
=
(5.7)
=
+
(5.8)
If = -1, then from (5.1),
= -1- . Since
0,
therefore according to the relation
is negative which
contradicts the positivity condition of dual variables.
Hence let
= 1, then from (5.1) - (5.8) we get the
following equations:
-

23

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29

= 1- ;
=
;
= 1+3
=
;
=
+5
Therefore, Maximize d( )=

)(

)x(

)(

)(

+
)]

=
+

+2

-1 ;

1)(

=
=3

1) x(

=[

1)x

)x

x(

1)(
+

and using the conditions of finding optimal solution we get

these sets of equations
log(4w1)-log(50w2)-log(
)+log( +
-1)= 0
(5.10)
-log(4 )+log( - )-log( +2 )log(
+3 )+log(
)=0
(5.11)
log(2)-log(50 )+ log( +
-1)-2log(
+2
)3log(
+3
)+
5log(
)= 0
(5.12)
From primal dual relations:
=
d( ),
(5.13)
=
d( ),
(5.14)
=
,
or,
=
=

or,

=
]

(5.9)

Taking log on both side of (5.9) and then partially

differentiating with respect to
,
and
respectively

or,
or,

=
=

Solving (5.10), (5.11) and (5.12) having different weights

and putting into (5.15), (5.16), (5.17), (5.18) we get the list
of values which are in table-1:

Table- 1: Optimal table of values of goal geometric programming problem (G2P2) of (5.1)

Optimal Dual variables

0.1

0.9

= 0.03986910,
=0.09408702,
= 7.059638,
=14.21336,

=0.9601309
=0.0398691
=0.9601309
=21.36709

0.2

0.8

0.3

0.7

= 0.08534347,
=0.2015470,
= 6.724859,
=13.65127,
= 0.1376842,
= 0.3254526,
= 6.338890,
=13.00323,

=0.9146565
=0.08534347
=0.9146565
=20.57767
=0.8623158
=0.1376842
=0.8623158
=19.66758

0.4

0.6

= 0.1985779,
=0.4699326,
= 5.889316,
=12.24856,

=0.8014221
=0.1985779
=0.8014221
=18.60781

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.4

=0.2702759,
=0.6405820,
= 5.358551,
=11.35768,
=0.3559232,
=0.8453603,
=4.722719,
=10.29080,

=0.7297241
=0.2702759
=0.7297241
=17.35682
=0.6440768
=0.355923
=0.6440768
=15.85888

0.7

0.3

=0.4600038,
=1.095969,
=3.946951,
=8.989871,

=0.539996
=0.4600038
=0.5399962
=14.03279

0.8

0.2

=0.5891060,
=1.410602,
=2.978068,
=7.366738,

=0.410894
=0.5891060
=0.4108940
=11.75541

0.9

0.1

=0.7542469,
=1.822708,
=1.729726,
=5.282160,

=0.245753
=0.7542469
=0.24575
=8.834594

Optimal Primal
variables
= 0.3994711
= 0.6005289
= 2.941396
=7.870561
= 0.3988224
= 0.6011776
= 2.937724
=7.871124
=0.3980077
= 0.6019923
= 2.933064
=7.872767
=0.3969541
=0.6030459
=2.927208
=7.875774
=0.3955383
= 0.6044617
= 2.919486
= 7.882387
=0.3935344
= 0.6064656
= 2.908837
= 7.895726
=0.3904792
= 0.6095208
= 2.893264
= 7.924910
=0.3852464
=0.6147536
=2.868455
=8.002847
=0.3741767
=0.6258233
=2.823676
=8.280242

Optimal
objectives
1st
objective
f1(x1, x2)
6.941396

values

of

2nd
objective
f2(x1, x2)
57.87054

6.937690

57.87121

6.933087

57.87277

6.927220

57.87597

6.919487

57.88240

6.908837

57.89567

6.893266

57.92534

6.868458

58.00288

6.823698

58.28024

Here, for different weights we get different optimum values

of decision variables, deviation variables and objective
JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

24

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29

functions. The logic of the theorem is also proved here since

all the deviations are positive at the optimum. Hence the
solutions are pareto optimal.
Solving (5.1) in non-linear programming (Kuhn-Tucker
conditions) we get the following results:
Minimize
+
,
subject to

0.

1)+ (
(i)
(iii) (iv) (v)

1,

1,

Lagrangian L=(
=0, (ii)
-4
-

(vi) (
(vii) (

)+

-1 0,

(ix)
- - 1 0,
(x) + -1 0, (xi) , ,
From (i) and (ii) = , =

0.
;

0.

Case 1: Let =0, then set of solutions comes from (iii),

(iv), (v), (vi) is infeasible.

1,
-

+
,

(viii)

- 1)+ ( + -1)
- =0,
+ =0,
+ =0,

Case 2: Let
0, then solving (v), (vi), and (vii) we get
= 0.8230774,
= 0.1769226,
= 34.81438,
=
483.0876,
1st Objective f1(x1, x2)= 38.81438, 2nd Objective f2(x1, x2)=
533.0877.
Here is the comparison of results between goal geometric
programming method and non-linear programming (KuhnTucker conditions) which shows that goal geometric
programming gives better result than non-linear
programming. We compare the values of two objective
functions of two different approaches. We take the values of
primal variables, 1st and 2nd objective functions for equal
weights from the above table and the values which we get in
non-linear programming approach.

-1) = 0,
- 1)=0,
-1) = 0,

Table-2: Comparison of G2PM (Goal Geometric Programming Method) and NLPM (Non-linear programming method).
Approaches

G2PM(Goal
Geometric
Programming
Method)
NLPM(Non-linear
Programming
Method)

Primal variables

*=0.3955383
*= 0.604462
*= 2.919486
*= 7.882387
= 0.8230774
= 0.1769226
= 34.81438
= 483.0876

Dual Variables

=0.2702759,
=0.7297241
=0.6405820,
=0.2702759
= 5.358551,
=0.7297241
=11.35768,
=17.35682
________________________

Application on Two bar truss problem:

The two bar truss is subjected to a vertical load 2P and is to
be designed for minimum weight. The members have a
tubular section with mean diameter d and wall thickness t
and the maximum permissible stress in each member ( ) is
equal to 60,000 psi. There are two goals:
Goal 1: weight should be near to 3
Goal 2: Ratio between stress and maximum permissible
stress should be around 1.
Formulate the above goal programming problem and
determine the values of mean diameter d and height h for the

1st
objective
f1(x1, x2)

2nd
objective
f2(x1, x2)

6.919487

57.88240

38.81438

533.0877

following data: P=33,000 lb, t=0.1 in. b=30 in.

psi, density = 0.3 lb/in3.
Illustration: Weight =2 d t
=0.188d
Stress = (P
) /( d t h) =(33,000
h 0.1)
Let
=y, or =
.
Hence the new constraint is
)/
1.

=60,000

)/ ( d

Therefore according to the first goal, weight 0.188 yd should

be less than 3.
And the second goal is
= (33,000 y) / ( d h 0.1
60,000) should be less than 1.

Therefore the multi objective nonlinear programming

problem is
JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

Minimize

=0.188 yd with target value 3

(6.1)
25

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29

Minimize =1.75 y
subject to 900
y, d, h>0.

with target value 1

1.

1.75 y
900
y, d, h,

The above model (6.1) can be converted into goal

programming model as
Minimize
+
(6.2)
Subject to, 0.188 yd 3

1
1.
,
>0.

=1.

We solve the above model (6.2) converting it into geometric

programming problem and then solving it we get the
following results:

Table: 3 List of values of decision variables of two bar truss problem

Optimal values
Optimal Dual variables

0.5

=0.295303,
=0.909394,
=0.909394,
=0.454697,

0.5

=0.7046970,
=0.295303,
=0.704697,
=0.454697.

From the table, it is clear that goals of decision maker (DM)

satisfy here appropriately. The first goal i.e. the first
objective should be near to 3 and the second goal i.e. the
second objective should be around 1, is maintained here.
The logic of the theorem is also proved here since all the
deviations are positive at the optimum. Hence the solutions
are Pareto optimal.
Body of Text:
Fuzzy Goal Programming formulations:
In fuzzy environment the multi-objective goal programming
problem can be written as
Find x = ( ,
)T
(7.1)
so as to
:
(x) =
with
target
and tolerance ,
:
(x) =
with target
and tolerance ,

:
(x) =
with target
and tolerance
,
Subject to (x) =
, r = 1, 2, 3 ...
q
0. k =1, 2, 3, n
There are various kinds of membership functions such that
linear, exponential, hyperbolic piecewise linear etc. The
corresponding membership functions of the minimize and
maximize objectives of (7.1) are
(
) = 1,
if
=
= 0,
for j=1, 2 m.

, if
if

Now a crisp mathematical programming is made by

substituting the membership functions. A weighted sum of
membership function of multi-objective fuzzy goals is taken
as achievement function in this paper. There are many

JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

Optimal Primal
variables

1st
objective
( )

2nd objective
( )

y*=42.42641,
d*=0.5569888,
h*=30,
=1.442634,
=3.442634.

4.442634

4.44331

practical situations where DM has different requirement for

each objective function in multiple objective optimization
problems according to his or her preference. Then there is a
big role of weight factors. Hence the crisp programming
model with weighted additive objective function is as
follows:
Maximize v ( =
(
)
Subject to
, r=1, 2 q
(
) 1
0, k=1, 2, 3 n,
=1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Numerical Example 2:
A multi-objective fuzzy goal programming
f1(x1, x2) =
with target value 4 tolerance
0.02,
f2(x1, x2) =
with target value 50
tolerance 0.05,
subject to
+
1,
,
0.
Membership function
=
1,
=

4
4

=
0
= 1,

4.02
4.02
50

50

50.05

=
0
Using fuzzy additive method:

50.05

Max (
subject to

i.e. Min
(8.1)
subject to

)+
1;

+
+

0.
-200

1;

1000

0.

Here is the solution of the above model using geometric

programming technique.

26

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29
Table-4: Optimal values of decision variables of (8.1)
Optimal values of objectives
Optimal Dual variables
0.1

0.9

0.2

0.8

0.3

0.7

0.4

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.4

=0.3076558,

=0.6923442,

=1.692344,

0.7

0.3

= 0.4074204,

=0.5925796,

=1.592580,

0.8

0.2

0.9

0.1

=0.1658144,

Optimal Primal variables

1st objective
f1(x1, x2)
6.936962

2nd objective
f2(x1, x2)
57.87140

6.928225

57.87532

=0.03222387,
=1.967776,
=0.06961029,
=1.930390,

=0.9677761,
=2.967776.
=0.9303897,
=2.93039.

=0.3986942,
=0.6013058.
=0.3971358,
=0.6028642.

=0.1135142,
=1.886486,
=0.8341856,

=0.8864858,
=2.886486.
=1.834186,

6.917898

57.88405

6.905519

57.90092

=0.2291976,
=1.770802,

=0.7708024,
=2.770802.

=0.3952435,
=0.6047565.
=0.3928963,
=0.6071037.
=0.3899068,
=0.6100932.

6.890438

57.93217

=2.692344.

=0.3859668,
=0.6140332.

6.871734

57.99019

=2.592580.

=0.3805302,
=0.6194698.
=0.3725203,
=0.6274797.
=0.3594349,
=0.6405651.

6.848108

58.10203

6.817901

58.33525

6.780367

58.89788

=0.5389038,
=1.461096,
=0.7214652,
=1.278535,

=2.834186.

=0.4610962,
=2.461096.
=0.2785348,
=2.278535.

Application on Two-bar truss problem:

The two bar truss is subjected to a vertical load 2P and is to
be designed for minimum weight. The members have a
tubular section with mean diameter d and wall thickness t
and the maximum permissible stress in each member ( ) is
equal to 60,000 psi. There are two goals:
Goal 1: Weight should be minimized with target value 3.
Decision maker gives some relaxation of target value i.e.1
and sets his opinion that this goal is very important.
Goal 2: Ratio between stress and maximum permissible
stress should be minimized with target value 1. Here
decision makers opinion that the goal is also very
important and gives a relaxation 0.5 on the target value.
Formulate the above goal programming problem and
determine the values of mean diameter d and height h for the
following data: P=33,000 lb, t=0.1 in. b=30 in. =60,000
psi, density = 0.3 lb/in3.
Illustration:
Weight =2 d t
=0.188d

And the second goal is

= (33,000 y) / ( d h 0.1

60,000) should be minimized with target value 1 and

tolerance 0.5.
The fuzzy goal programming formulation is
0.188 yd with target 3 tolerance1
1.75 y
with target 1 tolerance 0. 5
900
1, y, d, h>0.
Membership function
=
1,
0.188 yd
3
=
=0
=

1,

3 0.188 yd 4
0.188 yd 4
1.75 y

1 1.75 y
= 0
1.75 y
Using fuzzy additive method:
Maximize (
)+
subject to,
1

5
(2 - 3.5 y

)
2 - 3.5 y

1
900
1, y, d, h>0.

Stress = (P
) /( d t h) =(33,000
h 0.1)
Let
=y, or =
.
Hence the new constraint is
)/

)/ ( d

1.

Therefore according to the first goal, weight 0.188 yd should

be minimized with target value 3 and tolerance 1.

That is the above model can be written as Minimize

+
3.5 y
-3 -2
subject to 10.63829
1
0.28571
hd 1
900
1, y, d, h>0.
We solve the above crisp programming arranging it in to
geometric programming problem ignoring (-3 -2 ) and
get the solution

JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

27

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29
Table: 5 List of values of decision variables of two bar truss problem
Optimal values
st

Optimal Primal
variables

Optimal Dual variables

0.5

0.5

y*=3.168602,
d*=3.357408,
h*=3.303224,

=0.6666698,
=0.3333302,
=0.5116211,
=0.1782818,
=0.07
752437,
=0.07752437.

Observing the results of crisp goal geometric programming

on truss bar problem and fuzzy goal geometric programming
on the same we can conclude that fuzzy goal geometric
programming gives better result than crisp goal geometric
programming. The first goal i.e. the weight should be
minimized with target 3 which is very important according
to decision makers choice and this target fulfills properly.
Also the second goal i.e. the ratio of stress and maximum
permissible stress should be minimized with target 1 which
is also very important according to decision makers
choice and this target also fulfills properly.
CONCLUSIONS
By using Goal Geometric Programming we can solve multiobjective goal programming problem (MOGPP). This
method is very useful for many real life situations where
equations are non-linear. We show the efficiency of this
method with weighted sum deviations where weights
(priorities) can be changed as per requirement. The variation
of result according to weights (priorities) also shows the
perfection of this method. Comparing with non-linear
Optimization (Kuhn-Tucker conditions), this method gives
better result which is already described in this paper. This
method has several types of applications in the field of
engineering, sciences etc. Here we have applied this method
in two bar truss problem and show that this method is more
efficient than the previously solved process. We have also
discussed this method goal geometric programming in fuzzy
environment and applied this on two bar truss problem. It is
clear to us that fuzzy goal geometric programming gives
better result i.e. this method satisfies all our targets and
requirement as per our opinion. Instead of weighted sum
method one can use weighted product method, MINMAX
method etc. We can apply this method in imprecise
environment like intuitionistic fuzzy and interval number
also.

C. Romero, Handbook of critical issues

programming, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.

[2].

R. E. Steuer, Multiple criteria optimization: Theory.

Computation and application, New York: Wiley, 1986.

[3].

K. Deb, Solving Goal programming problems using Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms, IEEE, 1999.

JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

in

goal

1.999999

0.4999925

A.K. Ojha and K. K. Biswal, Multi-Objective Geometric

programming problem with weighted mean method,
International Journal of Computer Science and Information
Security Vol. 7 (No. 2), 2010.

[5].

A. K. Ojha and A. K. Das, Multi-Objective Geometric

programming problem being cost coefficients as continuous
function with weighted mean method, Journal of
Computing Vol. 2, (Issue 2) ISSN 2151-9617, 2010.

[6].

M. Luptacik, Mathematical Optimization and Economic

Analysis, Springer, New York: USA, 2010.

[7].

M. Tamiz, D. F. Jones and E. El-Darzi, A review of goal

programming and its applications, Annals of Operations
Research 58: 39-53, 1995.

[8].

M. Tamiz and D. F. Jones, Interactive frameworks for

investigation of goal programming models: theory and
practice Journal of multi-criteria decision analysis 6: 5260.

[9].

D. Jones and M. Tamiz, Practical Goal Programming,

International Series in Operations Research & Management
Science, Springer, 2010.

[10].

C. Romero, A general structure of achievement function for

a goal programming model, European Journal of
Operational Research 153: 675686, 2004.

[11].

R. Narasimhan, Goal Programming in Fuzzy Environment,

Decision Sciences, 11: 325-336, 1980.

[12].

R. N. Tiwari, S. Dharmar S and J. R. Rao, Priority

structure in Fuzzy Goal Programming, Fuzzy sets and
systems, 19:251-259, 1986.

[13].

J. S. Kim and K. S. Whang, The Tolerance Approach to the

Fuzzy Goal Programming Problems with Unbalanced
Triangular Membership Function, European Journal of
Operational Research, 107: 614-624, 1998.

[14].

J. Ramik, New Interpretation of the inequality relations in

fuzzy goal programming problems, Central European J.
Oper. Res. Econom., 4(4):252-265, 1996.

[15].

G. Li, Fuzzy goal programming A parametric approach,

Information Sciences, 195: 287295, 2012.

[16].

U. Ciptomulyono, Fuzzy Goal Programming Approach for

Deriving Priority Weights in the Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) Method, Journal of Applied Sciences
Research, 4(2): 171-177, 2008.

[17].

S. Li and C. Hu, Satisfying optimization method based on

goal programming for fuzzy multiple objective optimization
problem, European Journal of Operational Research, 197:
675684, 2009.

REFERENCES
[1].

2nd objective
( )

[4].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Its my privilege to thank my respected guide for his
enormous support and encourage for the preparation of this
research paper. The great support of my family members
makes me possible to do it.

1
objective
( )

28

Payel Ghosh et al, Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4 (8), August 2013, 21-29

[18].

S. S. Rao, Engineering optimization Theory and Practice,

New Age International (P) Limited, Publisher, New Delhi:
India, 1996.

[19].

K. Miettinen, Nonlinear Multi-objective Optimization,

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1999.

[20].

R. K. Verma, Fuzzy Geometric Programming with several

objective functions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 35 (Issue
1): 115-120, 1990.

Short Bio-Data of All Authors

Payel Ghosh, assistant professor of Adamas Institute
of Technology, Barasat, West Bengal, India, has completed
M.Sc. from Bengal Engineering and Science University,
Shibpur at 2009. She has completed her bachelor degree in
Mathematics at 2007.
Tapan Kumar Roy, professor of Bengal Engineering
and Science University, Shibpur, has published lots of
papers on Fuzzy and Intuitionistic Fuzzy set Theory,
Inventory, Transportation, Reliability Optimization,
Portfolio Optimization, Fuzzy and Stochastic Optimization,
etc.

JGRCS 2010, All Rights Reserved

29