Fischer tropsch. / use of multicriteria decision making methods for biomass selection in fischer tropsch reactors.
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jul 4, 2016
Keywords:
Biomass, biofuel, multi-criteria decision making methods, MCDM.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Proper choice of a fuel is an important task to fulfill the requirements for a bioreactor. The number of biomass fuel with different properties available to provide to a bioreactor is vast. However, application of efficiency and systematic mathematical approaches may achieve the evaluation. Multi-criteria decision making methods (MCDM) considers characteristic properties and qualitative criteria to assign importance to each alternative in order to select the best option. This research use MCDM for the selection of the fuel for a Fischer Tropsch reactor.The MCMD methods implemented are complex proportional assessment of alternatives with gray relations (COPRAS-G), operational competitiveness rating analysis (OCRA), a new additive ratio assessment (ARAS), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and SMART methods. The criteria weighting was performed by compromised weighting method composed of AHP (analytic hierarchy process) and Entropy methods. The results illustrated white grain appear has the best choice for a biomass fuel for the five MCMD.
Article Details
Section
Scientific Paper
The Universidad Politécnica Salesiana of Ecuador preserves the copyrights of the published works and will favor the reuse of the works. The works are published in the electronic edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution/Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Ecuador license: they can be copied, used, disseminated, transmitted and publicly displayed.
The undersigned author partially transfers the copyrights of this work to the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana of Ecuador for printed editions.
It is also stated that they have respected the ethical principles of research and are free from any conflict of interest. The author(s) certify that this work has not been published, nor is it under consideration for publication in any other journal or editorial work.
The author (s) are responsible for their content and have contributed to the conception, design and completion of the work, analysis and interpretation of data, and to have participated in the writing of the text and its revisions, as well as in the approval of the version which is finally referred to as an attachment.
References
1. Kumar Mittal V., Singh Sangwan K. 2015. Ranking of Drivers for Green Manufacturing Implementation Using Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Volume 22, Issue 1-2, pages 119–130. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1527
2. Ozbey O, Karwan M. H. 2014. An Interactive Approach for Multicriteria Decision Making Using a Tchebycheff Utility Function Approximation Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 21, Issue 3-4, pages 153–172. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1499.
3. Ribas J. R., da Silva Rocha M. 2015. A Decision Support System for Prioritizing Investments in an Energy Efficiency Program in Favelas in the City of Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 22, Issue 1-2, pages 89–99. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1524
4. Baležentis T., Baležentis A. 2014. A Survey on Development and Applications of the Multi-criteria Decision Making Method MULTIMOORA. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 21, Issue 3-4, pages 209–222,
5. Oral M., Kettani O., 2015. Conceptualizing a Research Paradigm for Multi-Objective Modelling in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 23, Issue 5-6. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1543
6. Hayashida T., et al. 2012. Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Collaborative Circulating Farming with Collective Operations Between Arable and Cattle Farmers. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Volume 19, Issue 5-6, pages 227–245. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1473
7. Jahan A., Ismail M. Y., Mustapha F., Sapuan S. M., 2010 Material selection based on ordinal data, Mater. Des., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 3180–3187.
8. Martínez J., Villacís S. P., Orozco M. A., Vaca D. E. 2015. Corrosion analysis in different materials for induction cookware. Conference Paper · X CONGRESO DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA. 2015 vol. 1, pp. 155-159.
9. Martínez J.,. Riofrio A. J., Villacis S. P., Kastillo J. P. 2015. Heat transfer analysis in different cookware materials. Conference Paper · X CONGRESO DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA. vol. 1, pp. 170-175.
10. Villacís S., Martínez J., Riofrío A. J., Carrión D. F., Orozco M. A., Vaca D. 2015. Energy efficiency analysis of different materials for cookware commonly used in induction cookers. Energy Procedia vol. 75, pp. 925-930.
11. Saaty T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill International, New York.
12. Mansor M. R., et al. 2011 .Hybrid natural and glass fibers reinforced polymer composites material selection using Analytical Hierarchy Process for automotive brake lever design. Mater. Des., vol. 51, pp. 484-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.072
13. Jessop A. 1999. Entropy in multiattribute problems. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 8, Issue 2. pages 61-70. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199903)8:2<61::AID-MCDA230>3.0.CO;2-P
14. Chatterjee P., Athawale V. M., Chakraborty S. 2011 Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods, Mater. Des., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 851–860.
15. Maity S. R., Chatterjee P., Chakraborty S. 2012. Cutting tool material selection using grey complex proportional assessment method, Mater. Des., vol. 36, pp. 372–378.
2. Ozbey O, Karwan M. H. 2014. An Interactive Approach for Multicriteria Decision Making Using a Tchebycheff Utility Function Approximation Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 21, Issue 3-4, pages 153–172. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1499.
3. Ribas J. R., da Silva Rocha M. 2015. A Decision Support System for Prioritizing Investments in an Energy Efficiency Program in Favelas in the City of Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 22, Issue 1-2, pages 89–99. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1524
4. Baležentis T., Baležentis A. 2014. A Survey on Development and Applications of the Multi-criteria Decision Making Method MULTIMOORA. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 21, Issue 3-4, pages 209–222,
5. Oral M., Kettani O., 2015. Conceptualizing a Research Paradigm for Multi-Objective Modelling in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 23, Issue 5-6. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1543
6. Hayashida T., et al. 2012. Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Collaborative Circulating Farming with Collective Operations Between Arable and Cattle Farmers. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Volume 19, Issue 5-6, pages 227–245. DOI: 10.1002/mcda.1473
7. Jahan A., Ismail M. Y., Mustapha F., Sapuan S. M., 2010 Material selection based on ordinal data, Mater. Des., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 3180–3187.
8. Martínez J., Villacís S. P., Orozco M. A., Vaca D. E. 2015. Corrosion analysis in different materials for induction cookware. Conference Paper · X CONGRESO DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA. 2015 vol. 1, pp. 155-159.
9. Martínez J.,. Riofrio A. J., Villacis S. P., Kastillo J. P. 2015. Heat transfer analysis in different cookware materials. Conference Paper · X CONGRESO DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA. vol. 1, pp. 170-175.
10. Villacís S., Martínez J., Riofrío A. J., Carrión D. F., Orozco M. A., Vaca D. 2015. Energy efficiency analysis of different materials for cookware commonly used in induction cookers. Energy Procedia vol. 75, pp. 925-930.
11. Saaty T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill International, New York.
12. Mansor M. R., et al. 2011 .Hybrid natural and glass fibers reinforced polymer composites material selection using Analytical Hierarchy Process for automotive brake lever design. Mater. Des., vol. 51, pp. 484-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.072
13. Jessop A. 1999. Entropy in multiattribute problems. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Volume 8, Issue 2. pages 61-70. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199903)8:2<61::AID-MCDA230>3.0.CO;2-P
14. Chatterjee P., Athawale V. M., Chakraborty S. 2011 Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods, Mater. Des., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 851–860.
15. Maity S. R., Chatterjee P., Chakraborty S. 2012. Cutting tool material selection using grey complex proportional assessment method, Mater. Des., vol. 36, pp. 372–378.