# Optimal Configuration of Modular Strongrooms Using Multi-Attribute Decision Making
## 5 Model Validation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Example**} & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Criteria Functions**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**The Cumulative**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & \(T_{tot}\) & \(C_{tot}\) & \(G_{tot}\) & \(R_{tot}\) & \(S\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 518.808 & 7692.702 & 24.881 & 66.952 & 0.9325 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 434.959 & 6426.189 & 33.986 & 53.451 & 0.8628 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{The optimal alternative} & wall & 504.186 & 7246.397 & 25.541 & 57.955 & 0.9968 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 413.721 & 5830.701 & 9.752 & 45.972 & 0.9810 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{2} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 239.109 & 3485.004 & 15.397 & 30.766 & 0.9260 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 133.782 & 2084.400 & 14.179 & 21.370 & 0.8619 \\ \cline{3-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{The optimal alternative} & wall & 230.716 & 3280.965 & 15.855 & 25.637 & 0.9971 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 127.416 & 1873.470 & 3.519 & 18.543 & 1.0000 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 189.000 & 2830.791 & 29.717 & 23.584 & 0.9689 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 127.010 & 1936.000 & 9.664 & 19.049 & 0.9050 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & wall & 187.121 & 2741.864 & 29.278 & 22.490 & 1.0000 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 123.693 & 1828.797 & 2.421 & 17.625 & 0.9999 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 196.715 & 2991.513 & 30.662 & 25.942 & 0.9202 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 131.022 & 1985.036 & 9.548 & 19.200 & 0.9059 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & wall & 191.234 & 2759.034 & 29.368 & 22.661 & 0.9999 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 127.635 & 1876.935 & 2.422 & 17.770 & 0.9999 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{5} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 222.198 & 3368.286 & 30.380 & 29.026 & 0.9275 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 166.473 & 2419.463 & 9.568 & 19.584 & 0.9088 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & wall & 216.564 & 3133.924 & 29.389 & 25.543 & 0.9999 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 162.184 & 2299.834 & 2.418 & 18.085 & 0.9999 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{6} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 219.081 & 3330.910 & 31.368 & 29.650 & 0.9019 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 155.126 & 2345.853 & 12.890 & 21.851 & 0.8708 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & wall & 209.891 & 3051.630 & 29.566 & 23.950 & 0.9999 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 147.903 & 2123.956 & 4.213 & 18.958 & 1.0000 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{7} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 242.443 & 3586.099 & 25.348 & 32.303 & 0.9373 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 159.112 & 2459.676 & 16.503 & 24.465 & 0.8712 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & wall & 236.569 & 3381.361 & 24.874 & 28.538 & 0.9998 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 152.464 & 2245.124 & 3.073 & 21.616 & 0.9999 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{Derived solution} & wall & 459.985 & 6872.068 & 30.285 & 62.272 & 0.9048 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 400.507 & 5874.035 & 29.183 & 47.555 & 0.8527 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & wall & 441.769 & 6282.496 & 30.246 & 50.624 & 0.9998 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & floor & 382.948 & 5390.364 & 7.095 & 41.529 & 0.9678 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{**Average improvement**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**3.3\%**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**7.0\%**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**28.7\%**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**12.5\%**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10.3\%**} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Comparative presentation of the obtained results and improvements in each example. If we look at the cumulative objective function in which the individual criteria are taken from the previously adopted weighting coefficients, it can be concluded that the total effect of applying IAKS MODULPRIM is 10.3%.