International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887)
Volume 148 No.12, August 2016
Multi-Objective Neutrosophic Optimization Technique
and its Application to Structural Design
Mridula Sarkar Samir Dey
Indian Institute Of Engineering Asansol Engineering College
Science and Technology, Vivekananda Sarani
Shibpur,P.O-Botanic Garden, Asansol-713305
Howrah-711103,West Bengal, West Bengal, India
India
ABSTRACT
In this paper, a multi-objective non-linear neutrosophic
optimization (NSO) approach for optimizing the design of
plane truss structure with multiple objectives subject to a
specified set of constraints has been developed. In this
optimum design formulation, the objective functions are the
weight of the truss and the deflection of loaded joint; the
design variables are the cross-sections of the truss members;
the constraints are the stresses in members. A classical truss
optimization example is presented here in to demonstrate the
efficiency of the neutrosophic optimization approach. The test
problem includes a three-bar planar truss subjected to a single
load condition. This multi-objective structural optimization
model is solved by neutrosophic optimization approach with
linear and non-linear membership function. Numerical
example is given to illustrate our NSO approach..
Keywords
Neutrosophic Set, Single Valued Neutrosophic Set,
Neutrosophic Optimization, Structural model.
1. INTRODUCTION
The research area of optimal structural design has been
receiving increasing attention from both academia and
industry over the past three decades in order to improve
structural performance and to reduce design costs. However,
in the real world, uncertainty or vagueness is prevalent in the
Engineering Computations. In the context of structural design
the uncertainty is connected with lack of accurate data of
design factors. This tendency has been changing due to the
increase in the use of fuzzy mathematical algorithm for
dealing with this class of problems. Fuzzy set (FS) theory has
long been introduced to handle inexact and imprecise data by
Zadeh [1], Later on Bellman and Zadeh [2] used the fuzzy set
theory to the decision making problem. The fuzzy set theory
also found application in structural design. Several researchers
like Wang et al. [3] first applied -cut method to structural
designs where the non-linear problems were solved with
various design levels , and then a sequence of solutions were
obtained by setting different level-cut value of . Rao [4]
applied the same -cut method to design a fourbar
mechanism for function generating problem. Structural
optimization with fuzzy parameters was developed by Yeh et
al. [5]. Xu [6] used two-phase method for fuzzy optimization
of structures. Shih et al. [7] used level-cut approach of the
first and second kind for structural design optimization
problems with fuzzy resources. Shih et al. [8] developed an
alternative -level-cuts method for optimum structural design
with fuzzy resources. Dey et al. [9] used generalized fuzzy
number in context of a structural design. Dey et al.[10]used
basic t-norm based fuzzy optimization technique for
Tapan Kumar Roy
Indian Institute Of Engineering
Science and Technology,
Shibpur ,P.O-Botanic
Garden,Howrah-711103,
West Bengal,India
optimization of structure. In such extension, Atanassov [11]
introduced Intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) which is one of the
generalizations of fuzzy set theory and is characterized by a
membership function, a non- membership function and a
hesitancy function. In fuzzy sets the degree of acceptance is
only considered but IFS is characterized by a membership
function and a non-membership function so that the sum of
both values is less than one. A transportation model was
solved by Jana et al.[12]using multi-objective intuitionistic
fuzzy linear programming. Dey et al. [13] solved two bar truss
non-linear problem by using intuitionistic fuzzy optimization
problem. Dey et al. [14] used intuitionistic fuzzy optimization
technique for multi objective optimum structural design.
Intuitionistic fuzzy sets consider both truth membership and
falsity membership. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets can only handle
incomplete information not the indeterminate information and
inconsistent information. In neutrosophic sets indeterminacy
is quantified explicitly and truth membership, indeterminacy
membership and falsity membership which are independent.
Neutrosophic theory was introduced by Smarandache [15].
The motivation of the present study is to give computational
algorithm for solving multi-objective structural problem by
single valued neutrosophic optimization approach.
Neutrosophic optimization technique is very rare in
application to structural optimization. Here it is aimed to
study the impact of truth exponential membership,
indeterminacy exponential membership and falsity hyperbolic
membership function in such optimization process. The
results are compared numerically linear and nonlinear
neutrosophic optimization technique. From our numerical
result, it has been seen that there is no change between the
result of linear and non-linear neutrosophic optimization
technique in the perspective of structural optimization
technique.
2. MULI-OBJECTIVE STRUCTURAL
MODEL
In the design problem of the structure i.e. lightest weight of
the structure and minimum deflection of the loaded joint that
satisfies all stress constraints in members of the structure. In
truss structure system ,the basic parameters (including
allowable stress ,etc) are known and the optimizations target
is that identify the optimal bar truss cross-section area so that
the structure is of the smallest total weight with minimum
nodes displacement in a given load conditions .
The multi-objective structural model can be expressed as
Minimize WT A (1)
minimize A
31
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887)
Volume 148 No.12, August 2016

subject to A Tc A x FA x , I c A x 1 FA x , Fc A x TA x .

Amin A Amax 3.6 Union of Neutrosophic Set

T The union of two single valued neutrosophic sets A and B is
where A A1 , A2 ,.... An are the design variables for the cross
a single valued neutrosophic set C , written as C A B
section, n is the group number of design variables for the ,whose truth membership, indeterminacy-membership and
n
cross section bar , WT A i Ai Li is the total weight of the
falsity-membership functions are given by
i 1
Tc A x max TA x ,TB x , I c A x max I A x , I B x ,
structure , A is the deflection of the loaded joint ,where
F x min F x , F x
c A A B for all x X .
Li , Ai and i are the bar length, cross section area and density
of the i th group bars respectively. A is the stress constraint 3.7 Intersection of Neutrosophic Set
The intersection of two single valued neutrosophic sets A and
and is allowable stress of the group bars under various
B is a single valued neutrosophic set C , written as
conditions, Amin and Amax are the lower and upper bounds of C A B ,whose truth membership, indeterminacy-
cross section area A respectively. membership and falsity-membership functions are given by
3. MATHEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
Tc A x min TA x ,TB x , I c A x min I A x , I B x ,
3.1 Fuzzy Set
Let X be a fixed set. A fuzzy set A in X is an object having
Fc A x max FA x , FB x for all x X
the form
A x,T x : x X where the function
A
4. MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
TA : X 0,1 defined the truth membership of the element
4.1 Neutrosophic Optimization Technique
x X to the set A .
to Solve Minimization type Multi-
3.2 Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set Objective Non-linear Programming
Let a set X be fixed. An intuitionistic fuzzy set or IFS A i in Problem

X is an object of the form A i X ,TA x , FA x x X Decision making is a process of solving the problem
involving the goals under constraints. The outcome is a
where TA : X 0,1 and FA : X 0,1 define the truth decision which should in an action .Decision making plays an
membership and falsity membership respectively,for every important role in engineering science .It is difficult process
due to factors like incomplete and imprecise information
element of x X , 0 TA x FA x 1 . which tend to presented real life situations. In the decision
making process ,our main target is to find the value from the
3.3 Neutrosophic Set selected set with the highest degree of membership in the
Let a set X be a space of points (objects) and x X .A decision set and these values support the goals under
neutrosophic set A n in X is defined by a truth membership constraints only. But there may be situations where some
function TA x , an indeterminacy-membership function
values from selected set cannot support i.e such values
strongly against the goals under constraints which are non-
I A x and a falsity membership function FA x and having admissible. In this case such values are found from selected
set with last degree of non membership in the decision sets.

the form A n x,TA x , I A x , FA x x X . TA x , Intuitionistic fuzzy sets can only handle incomplete
I A x and FA x are real standard or non-standard subsets of
information not the indeterminate information and
inconsistent information which exists commonly in belief
]0 ,1 [ .That is TA x : X ]0 ,1 [ , I A x : X ]0 ,1 [ , systems .In neutrosophic set ,indeterminacy is quantified
explicitely and truth membership ,indeterminacy
FA x : X ]0 ,1 [ . There is no restriction on the sum of
membership and falsity membership are independent.So it is
TA x , I A x and FA x so natural to adopt the purpose the value from the selected set
with highest degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-
0 supTA x I A x sup FA x 3 . membership and least degree of falsity membership on the
decision set. These factors indicate that a decision making
3.4 Single Valued Neutrosophic Set process takes place in neutrosophic environment.
Let a set X be the universe of discourse. A single valued
A nonlinear multi-objective optimization of the problem is of
neutrosophic set A n over X is an object having the form the form

A n x,TA x , I A x , FA x x X where

Minimize f1 x , f 2 x ,......., f p x (2)
TA : X 0,1, I A : X 0,1 and FA : X 0,1 with g j x bj j 1,2,...., q
0 TA x I A x FA x 3 for all x X . Now the decision set D n , a conjunction of Neutrosophic
objectives and constraints is defined
3.5 Complement of Neutrosophic Set p q
Complement of a single valued neutrosophic set A is denoted
k 1 j 1

D n G kn C nj x, TD n x I D n x , FD n x
by c A and is defined by
here

32
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887)
Volume 148 No.12, August 2016

TG n x , TG n x ,TG n x ,...........TG n x ; Step-4: upper and lower bounds for indeterminacy and falsity
1
TD n x min for all x X membership of objectives can be presented as follows :
2 3 p

TC1n x , TC2n x , TC3n x ,...........TCqn x

for k 1,2,...... p

I G n x , I G n x , I G n x ,...........I G n x ;
1
U kF U kT and LFk LTk t U kT LTk ;
I D n x min for all x X
2 3 p

I C1n x , I C2n x , I C3n x ,...........I C qn x LIk LTk and U kI LTk s U kT LTk

FG n x , FG n x , FG n x ,...........FG n x ; Here t , s are predetermined real numbers in 0,1
1
FD n x min for all x X
2 3 p

C1
F n x , FC 2
n x , FC3
n x ,...........FC q
n x Step-5: Define truth membership, indeterminacy membership
and falsity membership functions as follows

Where TD n x , I D n x , FD n x are truth-membership for k 1,2,..., p

function, indeterminacy membership function, falsity
1 if f k x LTfk x
membership function of neutrosophic decision set respectively

U f x f k x
.Now using the neutrosophic optimization, problem (2) is T

transformed to the non-linear programming problem as
T fk x f k x 1 exp Tk

if L fk x f k x U fk x
T T

Max , Max , Min

T
(3) fk x fk x
U L

such that TG n x ; TC n x ; 0 if f x U Tfk x
k j

I G n x ; I C n x ;
k j 1 if f k x LIf x

FG n x ; FC n x ;
U f x f k x
I


I f k x f k x exp Ik if L f k x f k x U f k x
k j
I I
3;
U f k x L f k x
I

; ;
0 if f k x U If k x
, , 0,1

Now this non-linear programming problem (3) can be easily

0 if f x LFf x

solved by an appropriate mathematical programming to give
1 1 U Ff x LFf x
f x if LFf x f x U Ff x
solution of multi-objective non-linear programming problem
Ff x f x tanh f x
(1) by neutrosophic optimization approach 2 2 2


4.1.1 Computational Algorithm 1 if f x U Ff x
Step-1: Solve the MONLP problem (2) as a single objective
Step-6:Now neutosophic optimization method for MONLP
non-linear problem p times for each problem by taking one of
problem gives a equivalent nonlinear programming problem
the objectives at a time and ignoring the others. These
as
solution are known as ideal solutions. Let x k be the respective
optimal solution for the k th different objective and evaluate Maximize (4)
each objective values for all these k th optimal solution.
such that
Step-2: From the result of step-1, determine the
corresponding values for every objective for each derived
Tk f k x ; I k f k x ; Fk f k x ;
solution, pay-off matrix can be formulated as follows
3; ; ; , , 0,1;
f1* x1

f 2 x1 ...................
f p x1

f x2 f 2* x 2
...................
f p x2 g j x b j x 0,
1
.......... ..........

........... ...................
k 1,2,..., p; j 1,2,..., q
f1 x p
f2 x p
..................
f p* x p
which is reduced to equivalent non-linear programming
problem as
Step-3: For each objective f k x find lower bound Lk and
Maximize (5)
the upper bound U k

such that
U kT max f k x r *
U kT LTk
and fk x LTk ;
4
where r 1,2,..., k
LTk min f k x r *

For truth membership of objectives.

33
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887)
Volume 148 No.12, August 2016

fk x
U k Lk f

T T

; k

IWT A WT A
f
k
2 1 if WT A LTWT A
f k x fk L fk ; for k 1,2,...., p
T
k LT

WT A WT WT A
if LWT A WT A LWT A WT
Where log 1 , log ,
T T

exp
WT

tanh 1 2 1 , 4, f
6 0 if WT A LTWT A WT
k
U kF LFk

3; ; ; , , 0,1; g j x b j ; x 0,
FWT A WT A
0 if WT A LTWT A WT
This crisp nonlinear programming problem can be solved by
appropriate mathematical algorithm.
1 1

tanh WT A

UWTT A LTWT A WT

WT if LWT A WT WT A UWT A
T T
4.2 Solution of Multi-Objective Structural 2 2 2
Optimization Problem (MOSOP) by
1 if WT A UWTT A
Neutrosophic Optimization Technique
where 0 WT , WT UWT LTWT
To solve the MOSOP (1), step 1 of 4.1.1 is used .After that T
according to step to pay off matrix is formulated.

WT A A

A1 WT A
*
1
A1
and
2
A WT A2
*
A
2
1 if A LT

U A
T

T A A 1 exp T if LT A U T
T
According to step-2 the bound of weight objective UWT , LTWT ;
U LT
UWTI I
, LWT and UWTF F
, LWT for truth, indeterminacy and falsity

membership function respectively. Then 0 if A U T
LTWT WT A UWT
T I
; LWT WT A UWTI
;
F
WT A UWT
F
if A LT
LWT .Similarly the bound of deflection 1


T T I I F F
objective are U , L ; U , L and U , L are respectively for LT A

truth, indeterminacy and falsity membership function. Then
I A A exp
if L A L
T T

LT A UT ; LI A UI ; L A U .Where
F F

F
UWT UWT
T F
, LWT LTWT WT ; LWT
I
LTWT , UWT
I
LTWT WT 0 if A LT

and UF UT , LF LT ; LI LT , UI LT such
that 0 if A LT


1 1
UT LT
if LT A U T
0 WT UWT LTWT and 0 UT LT .

F A A tanh A
T

2 2 2

Therefore the truth, indeterminacy and falsity membership
functions for objectives are 1 if A UT

TWT A WT A
where , are non-zero parameters prescribed by the
1 if WT A LTWT A

decision maker and for where 0 , UT LT

UWT A WT A
T

1 exp T if LTWT A WT A UWT

T
A According to neutrosophic optimization technique
UWT A LWT A
T
considering truth, indeterminacy and falsity membership

0 if WT A UWT T
A
function for MOSOP (1), crisp non-linear programming
problem can be formulated as
Maximize (6)

Subject to

TWT WT A ; T A ;

IWT WT A ; I A ;

34
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887)
Volume 148 No.12, August 2016

FWT WT A ; F A ; The multi-objective optimization problem can be stated as
follows
A ;
Minimize WT A1 , A2 L 2 2 A1 A2 (8)
3; ; ;
PL
Minimize A1 , A2
, , 0,1, Amin A Amax
E A1 2 A2
which is reduced to equivalent non-linear programming
problem as Subject to

Maximize (7)
1 A1 , A2
P 2 A1 A2 T
;
Such that 2A 1
2
2 A1 A2 1

WT A
U T
WT LTWT U 2 A1 , A2
P
2T ;

T
;
A1 2 A2
WT

U T
L WT
T
WT A WT WT
; 3 A1 , A2
PA2
3C ;
WT 2 2A 1
2
2 A1 A2
WT A WT LTWT WT ;
Aimin Ai Aimax i 1,2

A
U T
LT U T
;
where P applied load ; material density ; L length ;


E Youngs modulus ; A1 Cross section of bar-1 and bar-
3; A2 Cross section of bar-2; is deflection of loaded
UWTT
LTWT
A LT ; A ; joint. 1T and 2T are maximum allowable tensile stress
2
for bar 1 and bar 2 respectively, 3 is maximum allowable
C

3; ; ; , , 0,1
compressive stress for bar 3.The input numeric data are given
in Table 1.
where ln 1 ; 4; WT
6
;
U F
WT LWT
F
Solution : According to step 2 of 4.1.1, pay-off matrix is
formulated as follows
; ln ; tanh 1 2 1.
6
WT A1 , A2 A1 , A2
i

UFi LFi
A 2.638958
1
14.64102 .
Solving the above crisp model (7) by an appropriate
A2 19.14214 1.656854
mathematical programming algorithm optimal solution will be
obtained and hence objective functions i.e structural weight Here
and deflection of the loaded joint will attain Pareto optimal
solution.
F
UWT UWT
T
19.14214, LWT
F
LTWT 1 2.638958 1;

5. NUMERICAL ILLUSTRATION I
LWT LTWT 2.638958,UWT
I
LTWT 1 2.638958 1
A well known three bar planer truss is considered to minimize
weight of the structure WT A1 , A2 and minimize the such that 0 1, 1 19.14214 2.638958 ;

deflection A1 , A2 at a loading point of a statistically UF UT 14.64102, LF LT 2 1.656854 2 ;

loaded three bar planer truss subject to stress constraints on
each of the truss members LI LT 1.656854,UI LT 2 1.656854 2

such that 0 2 , 2 14.64102 1.656854

Here truth, indeterminacy, and falsity membership function

for objective functions WT A1 , A2 , A1 , A2 are defined as
follows

Fig 1: Design of the three-bar planar truss

35
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887)
Volume 148 No.12, August 2016

TWT A1 , A2 WT A1 , A2 20
3.2460415 14.64102;

1 if WT A1 , A2 2.638958 A1 2 A2
19.14214 WT A1 , A2

if 2.638958 WT A1 , A2 19.14214 12.984166 2
1 exp 4

16.503182
20

16.297874 2 ;

0 if WT A1 , A2 19.14214 A1 2 A2 6 2

IWT A1 , A2 WT A1 , A2 20
2 1.656854 2 ;

1 if WT A1 , A2 2.638958
A1 2 A2
2.638958 1 WT A1 , A2
exp if 2.638958 WT A1 , A2 2.638958 1

1 20 2 A1 A2 20; 20
20;
if WT A1 , A2 2.638958 1
0
2A 1
2
2 A1 A2 A1 2 A2

FWT A1 , A2 WT A1, A2
20 A2
if WT A1, A2 2.638958 15;

0
2 A12 2 A1 A2
1 1 21.781098 1 6
tanh WT A1, A2 if 2.638958 WT A1, A2 19.14214 3; ;
2 2 2 16.503182 1
1 if WT A1, A2 19.14214 0.1 A1, A2 5

0 1,1 16.503182 Now , using above mentioned truth, indeterminacy and falsity
membership function NLP (8) can be solved by NSO
and
technique for different values of 1 , 2 and 1 , 2 . The

T A1 , A2 A1 , A2 optimum solution of MOSOP(8) is given in table (2) .

1 if A1 , A2 1.656854 Here solutions for the different tolerance 1 , 2 and 3 for

indeterminacy membership function of objective functions is
14.64102 A1 , A2
1 exp 4 if 1.656854 A1, A2 14.64102 shown in the table (2). From the table 2, it shows that NSO
12.984166 technique gives same Pareto optimal result for linear and non-

if A1 , A2 14.64102
linear membership functions in the perspective of Structural
0
Optimization.

I A1 , A2 A1 , A2 6. CONCLUSIONS
The main objective of this work is to illustrate how
1 if A1 , A2 1.656854 neutrosophic optimization technique can be utilized to solve a

1.656854 2 T A1 , A2
nonlinear structural problem. The concept of neutrosophic
exp if 130 A1, A2 1.656854 2 optimization technique allows one to define a degree of truth
2 membership, which is not a complement of degree of falsity;
0 if A1 , A2 1.656854 2 rather, they are independent with degree of indeterminacy. In
this problem actually it is investigated the effect of non-linear

truth, indeterminacy and falsity membership function of
F A1 , A2 A1, A2 neuotrosophic set in perspective of multi-objective structural
optimization. Here a non-linear three bar truss design problem
0 if A1, A2 1.656854 2 has been considered. In this test problem, minimum weight of
the structure as well as minimum deflection of loaded joint are
1 1 16.297874 2 6
tanh A1, A2 if 1.656854 A , A minimized. The results of this study may lead to the
14.64102
12.984166 2
2 1 2
2 2 2 development of effective neutrosophic technique for solving
1 if A1, A2 14.64102 other model of nonlinear programming problem in different
field.
0 2 ,2 12.9842
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
According to neutrosophic optimization technique the The research work of Mridula Sarkar is financed by Rajiv
MOSOP (8) can be formulated as Gandhi National Fellowship (F1-17.1/2013-14-SC-wes-
Maximize 42549/(SA-III/Website)),Govt of India.

2
2 A1 A2 4.1257 19.14214;

16.503182 21.781098
2 2A A 1 2
6

2
1
; 1

2 2 A A 2.638958 ;
1 2 1 1

36
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 8887)
Volume 148 No.12, August 2016

Table 1: Input data for crisp model (8)

Maximum Maximum
Applied allowable allowable Youngs Aimin and
Volume
Length L
density
load P tensile stress compressive stress modulus E Aimax of cross
KN m 1T 3C
KN / m
3 KN / m 2 section of bars

KN / m 2
KN / m 2 10 4
m2

A1min 0.1
A1max 5
20 100 1 20 15 2 107
A2min 0.1
A2max 5

Table 2: Optimal solution of MOSOP (8)

A1 A2 WT A1 , A2 A1 , A2
Methods
104 m 2 104 m2 102 KN 107 m

Neutosophic optimization (NSO) with

nonlinear membership function
1 3.30064, 2 2.59696 .5777658 2.655110 4.289278 2.955334

1 1.65032,2 1.29848

8. REFERENCES [9] Dey, S., & Roy, T. K. 2014. A Fuzzy programming

[1] Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy set, Information and
Control, 8(3), 338-353.
[2] Bellman, R. E., &Zadeh, L. A. 1970.Decision-making
in a fuzzy environment, Management science, 17(4), B-
141.
[3] Wang, G.Y. & Wang, W.Q. 1985.Fuzzy optimum
design of structure. Engineering Optimization, 8, 291-
300.
[4] Rao, S. S. 1987. Description and optimum design of
fuzzy mechanical systems, Journal of Mechanisms,
Transmissions, and Automation in Design, 109(1), 126-
132.
[5] Yeh, Y.C. & Hsu, D.S. 1990.Structural optimization
with fuzzy parameters. Computer and Structure,37(6),
917924.
[6] Changwen, X. 1989. Fuzzy optimization of structures
by the two-phase method. Computers & Engineering and Electronic Business, 6(4), 45.
Structures, 31(4), 575-580.
[7] Shih, C. J., Chi, C. C., & Hsiao, J. H. 2003. Alternative
-level-cuts methods for optimum structural design with
fuzzy resources. Computers & structures, 81(28), 2579-
2587.
[8] Shih, C. J., & Lee, H. W. 2004. Level-cut approaches of
first and second kind for unique solution design in fuzzy
engineering optimization problems. Tamkang Journal of
Science and Engineering 7(3),189-198.
Technique for Solving Multi-objective Structural
Problem. International Journal of Engineering and
Manufacturing, 4(5), 24.
[10] Dey, S., & Roy, T. K. 2016. 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.
[11] Atanassov, K. T. 1986. Intuitionistic fuzzy
sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,20(1), 87-96.
[12] Jana, B., & Roy, T. K. 2007. Multi-objective
intuitionistic fuzzy linear programming and its
application in transportation model. Notes on
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 13(1), 34-51.
[13] Dey, S., & Roy, T. K. 2014. Optimized solution of two
bar truss design using intuitionistic fuzzy optimization
technique. International Journal of Information
[14] Dey, S., & Roy, T. K. 2015. Multi-objective structural
optimization using fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy
optimization technique. International Journal of
Intelligent systems and applications, 7(5), 57.
[15] Smarandache, F. 1998. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic
probability, set and logic, Amer. Res. Press, Rehoboth,
USA,105.

IJCATM : www.ijcaonline.org 37