Application of the new hybrid model LMAW-G-EDAS multi-criteria decision-making when choosing an assault rifle for the needs of the army


  • Marko Radovanović Military Academy, University of Defence in Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Aleksandar Petrovski Department of Military science and skills, Military academy “General Mihailo Apostolski”, University “Goce Delcev” Stip, North Macedonia
  • Elif Cirkin Department of Business Administration, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey; School of Engineering, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
  • Aner Behlić Department of Military science and skills, Military academy “General Mihailo Apostolski”, University “Goce Delcev” Stip, North Macedonia
  • Željko Jokić Military Academy, University of Defence in Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Denis Chemezov Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Vladimir Industrial College, Vladimir, Russian Federation
  • Elshan Giyas Hashimov National Defense University, Baku, Azerbaijan
  • Mouhamed Bayane Bouraima School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
  • Chiranjibe Jana Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India



Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights (LMAW), grey theory, Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), weapons, assault rifle


The paper addresses the selection of the most favorable alternative in the form of assault rifles to meet the requirements arising from modern combat operations. The complexity of the problem, conditioned by the different structural elements of automatic rifles and the specific situations of their use, has caused the application of Multi-Criteria Decision-making (MCDM) methods. A hybrid model was developed to guide the selection of the appropriate automatic rifle. The criteria were defined by experts, where the calculation of the weight coefficients of criteria was performed using the LMAW method Employing the grey EDAS method for MCDM, the study identifies an assault rifle that offers the most advantageous capabilities for carrying out firing tasks in the context of daily combat operations, with the aim of equipping the armed forces and raising the operational capability of the units. The validity of this model was verified through sensitivity analysis involving the adjustment of criteria weight coefficients.


Download data is not yet available.


Akram, M., Ramzan, N., & Deveci, M. (2023). Linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy CRITIC-EDAS method for multiple-attribute group decision analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 119, 105777.

Asadi, M., Zolfani, S. H., Pamučar, D., Salimi, J., & Saberi, S. (2023). The appropriation of blockchain implementation in the supply chain of SMES based on fuzzy LMAW. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 123, 106169.

Ashari, H., & Parsaei, M. (2014). Application of the multi-criteria decision method ELECTRE III for the Weapon selection. Decision Science Letters, 3(4), 511-522.

Bouraima, M. B., Ayyıldız, E., Badi, I., Özçelik, G., Yeni, F. B., & Pamucar, D. (2024). An integrated intelligent decision support framework for the development of photovoltaic solar power. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127, 107253.

Božanić, D., Pamučar, D., Milić, A., Marinković, D., & Komazec, N. (2022). Modification of the Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights (LMAW) by a Triangular Fuzzy Number and Its Application in Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Axioms, 11(3), 89.

Božanić, D., Ranđelović A., Radovanović M., & Tešić D. (2020). A hybrid LBWA - IR-MAIRCA multi-criteria decision-making model for determination of constructive elements of weapons. Facta Universitatis Series Mechanical Engineering, 18(3), 399-418.

Chemezov, D., German, P., Kuzin, A., Akhmetov, E., Gorechnin, A., & Karatun, G. (2021). Comparison of the bullet penetration when shooting from the AK-109 assault rifle at the targets made of various metallic and non-metallic materials. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 05(97), 581-593.

Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kılınç, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert systems with applications, 36(4), 8143-8151.

Datta, S., Sahu, N., & Mahapatra, S. (2013). Robot selection based on grey MULTIMOORA approach. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 3(2), 201-232.

Demir, G. (2022a). Analysis of the financial performance of the deposit banking sector in the COVID-19 period with LMAW-DNMA methods. International Journal of Insurance and Finance, 2(2), 17-36.

Demir, G. (2022b). Evaluation of the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index by Fuzzy LMAW Method. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nicel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(1), 67-77.

Deng, J. L. (1992). An Introduction to Grey Mathematics–Grey Hazy Set. Wuhan: Press of Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

Dimitrov, M. (2021). Analysis on the Next Generation Assault Rifles and Ammunition Designed for the US Army. Problems of Mechatronics. Armament, Aviation, Safety Engineering, 12(2), 91-109.

Ecer, F. (2018). Third-party logistics (3Pls) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 615–634.

Fikus, B., & Trębiński, R. (2020). Numerical Simulation of Submachine Gun Operation Cycle. Proceedings of International Scientific Conference “Defense Technologies” DefTech 2020, Faculty of Artillery, Air Defense and Communication and Information Systems (pp. 188-194).

Fikus, B., Dorochowicz, A., Surma, Z., Kijewski, J., Leciejewski, Z., Michalski, J., & Trębiński, R. (2022). Investigations of Middle-Caliber Anti-Aircraft Cannon Interior Ballistics including Heat Transfer Problem in Estimation of Critical Burst Length. Processes, 10(3), 607.

Ghorabaee, K. M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435–451.

Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making using an extended EDAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Economics and Management, 20, 48-68.

Gordon, J., Matsumura, J., Atler, A., Boston, S. S., Boyer, M. E., Lander, N., & Nichols, T. W. (2015). Comparing U.S. Army Systems with Foreign Counterparts: Identifying Possible Capability Gaps and Insights from Other Armies. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

Goździk, D., Kijewski, J., Kupidura, P., & Szmit, L. (2019). Influence of Muzzle Device on the Jump of Some Rifles of MSBS-5.56 Modular Small Arms System and the Accuracy of Shot Pattern. Issues of Armament Technology, 150 (2), 45-57.

Jenkins, S., & Lowrey, D. (2004). A Comparative Analysis of Current and Planned Small Arms Weapon Systems. MBA Professional Report. California: Naval Postgraduate School Monterey.

Kahraman, C., Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Cevik Onar, S., Yazdani, M. & Oztaysi, B.

(2017). Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection.

Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 25(1), 1-12.

Karaşan, A., & Kahraman, C. (2018). Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Extension of EDAS Method. In Kacprzyk, J., Szmidt, E., Zadrożny, S., Atanassov, K., & Krawczak, M. (eds.), Advances in Fuzzy Logic and Technology 2017. EUSFLAT IWIFSGN 2017 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 642 (pp. 343-357). Cham: Springer.

Karatop, B., Taskan, B., Adar, E., & Kubat, C. (2021). Decision analysis related to the renewable energy investments in Turkey based on a fuzzy AHP-EDAS-fuzzy FMEA approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 151, 106958.

Kokelj, T., & Randjelovic, A. (2018). Shooting theory (Only in Serbian: Teorija gađanja). Belgrade: Global Security.

Kowalewski, J. (2021). Comparative Tests of Chosen Service Weapons and Their Simulators. Part I - 5.56 mm Beryl Assault Rifle. Issues of Armament Technology, 155 (4): 7-21.

Liang, Y. (2020). An EDAS method for multiple attribute group decision-making under intuitionistic

fuzzy environment and its application for evaluating green building energy-saving design

projects. Symmetry, 12(3), 484.

Lin, Y. H., Lee, P. C., Chang, T. P., & Ting, H. I. (2008). Multi-attribute group decision making model under the condition of uncertain information. Automation in Construction, 17(6), 792-797.

Liu, S., & Lin, Y. (2010). Introduction to Grey Systems Theory. In: Grey Systems. Understanding Complex Systems, Vol. 68 (pp. 1-18). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Lukic, R. (2023). Measurement and Analysis of The Information Performance of Companies in The European Union and Serbia Based on The Fuzzy LMAW and MARCOS Methods. Informatica Economica, 27(1), 17-31.

Menekse, A., & Akdag, H. C. (2022). Distance education tool selection using novel spherical fuzzy AHP EDAS. Soft Computing, 26(4), 1617–1635.

Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., Milić, A. (2016). Selection of a course of action by Obstacle Employment Group based on a fuzzy logic system. Yugoslav journal of operations research, 26(1), 75-90.

Pamučar, D., Đorović, B., Božanić, D., & Ćirović, G. (2012). Modification of the dynamic scale of marks in analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network approach (ANP) through application of fuzzy approach. Scientific Research and Essays, 7(1), 24-37.

Pamučar, D., Žižović, M., Biswas, S., & Božanić, D. (2021). A new Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights (LMAW) for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: Application in Logistics, Facta Universitatis Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 361–380.

Paul, A., Shukla, N., Paul, S.K., & Trianni, A. (2021). Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 13(13), 7104.

Peng, X., & Liu, C. (2017). Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS, new similarity measure and level soft set. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(1), 955–968.

Peng, X., Dai, J., & Yuan, H. (2017). Interval-valued fuzzy soft decision-making methods based on MABAC, similarity measure and EDAS. Fundamenta Informaticae, 152(4), 373–396.

Puška, A., Božanić, D., Nedeljković, M., & Janošević, M. (2022). Green Supplier Selection in an Uncertain Environment in Agriculture Using a Hybrid MCDM Model: Z-Numbers–Fuzzy LMAW–Fuzzy CRADIS Model. Axioms, 11(9), 427.

Puška, A., Štilić, A., Nedeljković, M., Božanić, D., & Biswas, S. (2023). Integrating Fuzzy Rough Sets with LMAW and MABAC for Green Supplier Selection in Agribusiness. Axioms, 12(8), 746.

Radovanović, M., & Stevanović, M. (2020). Analysis of the construction characteristics of automatic domestic production rifles for the purpose of equipping units of the Serbian Army. Serbian Journal of Engineering Management, 5(1), 40-49.

Radovanović, M., Božanić, D., Tešić, D., Puška, A., Hezam, I., & Jana, C. (2023a). Application of hybrid DIBR-FUCOM-LMAW-Bonferroni-grey-EDAS model in multicriteria decision-making. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 21(3), 387-403.

Radovanović, M., Milić, A., & Petrovski, A. (2021). Analysis of accuracy and precision of shooting with home: Made automatic rifles using the AHP method. Scientific Technical Review, 71(1), 30-37.

Radovanović, M., Petrovski, A., Behlić, A., Perišić, M., Samopjan, M., & Lakanović, B. (2023b). Application model of MCDM for selection of automatic rifle. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 3(1), 185–196.

Ranđelović, A., & Komazec, N. (2016). Safe handling of pistols and revolvers (Only in Serbian: Bezbedno rukovanje pištoljima i revolverima). Belgrade: S4 Global Security.

Rogulj, K., Pamuković, J. K., Antucheviciene, J., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2022). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision

Support Based on EDAS and Grey Relational Degree for Historic Bridges Reconstruction Priority. Soft computing, 26, 9419–9444.

Sıcakyüz, Ç. (2023). Analyzing Healthcare and Wellness Products’ Quality Embedded in Online Customer Reviews: Assessment with a Hybrid Fuzzy LMAW and Fermatean Fuzzy WASPAS Method. Sustainability, 15(4), 3428.

Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E.K., Ghorabaee, M.K., & Turskis, Z. (2017). An Extension of the EDAS Method Based on the Use of Interval Grey Numbers. Studies in Informatics and Control, 26(1), 5-12.

Stevic, Z., Vasiljevic, M., Puška, A., Tanackov, I., Junevicius, R., & Veskovic, S. (2019). Evaluation of suppliers under uncertainty: A multiphase approach based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy EDAS. Transport, 34(1), 52–66.

Tančić, L.J., Regodić, D., Ristić, Z., Kari, A., Vasiljević, D., & Maričić, Z. (2009). Handling and maintenance of weapons (Only in Serbian: Poznavanje i održavanje naoružanja). Belgrade: Military publishing institute.

Terzioglu, T., & Polat, G. (2022). Formwork System Selection in Building Construction Projects Using an Integrated Rough AHP-EDAS Approach: A Case Study. Buildings, 12(8), 1084.

Tešić, D., Božanić, D., Puška, A., Milić, A., & Marinković, D. (2023). Development of the MCDM fuzzy LMAW-grey MARCOS model for selection of a dump truck. Reports in Mechanical Engineering, 4(1), 1–17.

Tešić, D., Radovanović, M., Božanić, D., Pamučar, D., Milić, A., & Puška, A. (2022). Modification of the DIBR and MABAC Methods by Applying Rough Numbers and Its Application in Making Decisions. Information, 13(8), 353.

Ulutaş, A. (2017). Sewing Machine Selection for a Textile Workshop by Using EDAS Method. Journal of Business Research-Türk, 9(2), 169-183.

Woźniak, R. B., Zahor, M., Madej, P., Pawlak, J., & Piechota, N. (2021). Evolution of the MSBS Grot Assault Rifle from Version A0 to Version A2. Problems of Mechatronics: Armament, Aviation, Safety Engineering, 12 (1), 75-86.

Yilmaz, N. (2023). Integrated LMAW-CRADIS model for ranking of the banks in Bulgaria. In Ceylan A. C., & Batal S. (eds.), International Studies in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences (pp. 159-181). Ankara: Serüven Publishing.



How to Cite

Radovanović, M., Petrovski, A., Cirkin, E., Behlić, A., Jokić, Željko, Chemezov, D., Hashimov, E. G., Bouraima, M. B., & Jana, C. (2024). Application of the new hybrid model LMAW-G-EDAS multi-criteria decision-making when choosing an assault rifle for the needs of the army. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 4(1), 16–31.