Evaluation of energy economic optimization models using multi-criteria decision-making approach

被引:0
|
作者
Alamoodi, A. H. [1 ,2 ,6 ]
Al-Samarraay, Mohammed S. [3 ]
Albahri, O. S. [4 ,5 ]
Deveci, Muhammet [7 ,8 ,9 ]
Albahri, A. S. [10 ,11 ]
Yussof, Salman [1 ,12 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tenaga Nas, Inst Informat & Comp Energy, Kajang, Malaysia
[2] Appl Sci Private Univ, Appl Sci Res Ctr, Amman, Jordan
[3] Gulf Univ, Coll Engn, Elect & Elect Engn Dept, Sanad 26489, Bahrain
[4] Australian Tech & Management Coll, Melbourne, Australia
[5] Mazaya Univ Coll, Comp Tech Engn Dept, Nasiriyah, Iraq
[6] Middle East Univ, MEU Res Unit, Amman, Jordan
[7] Natl Def Univ, Turkish Naval Acad, Dept Ind Engn, TR-34942 Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkiye
[8] Imperial Coll London, Royal Sch Mines, London SW7 2AZ, England
[9] Western Caspian Univ, Dept Informat Technol, Baku 1001, Azerbaijan
[10] Imam Jaafar Al Sadiq Univ, Tech Coll, Baghdad, Iraq
[11] Iraqi Commiss Comp & Informat ICCI, Baghdad, Iraq
[12] Univ Tenaga Nas, Coll Comp & Informat, Dept Comp, Kajang, Malaysia
关键词
Energy systems; Energy economy optimization models; Multi-attribute decision analysis; Fuzzy-weighted zero-consistency method; Fuzzy decision by opinion score method;
D O I
10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124842
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Achieving high performance in energy systems is crucial for sustainability. Energy economy optimization (EEO) models offer transparent analysis for energy policy decision-making. However, evaluating and benchmarking these models is a complex multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problem. Challenges include multiple criteria, data variation, and the importance of diverse criteria. This study develops an integrated MCDM approach to evaluate and benchmark EEO models. The methodology involves three phases. First, 12 commonly used EEO models and five evaluation criteria (software licenses, public source code, redistribution, public source data, and commercial software) are identified to create an evaluation decision matrix. Second, the fuzzy-weighted zeroconsistency method (FWZIC) is used to evaluate and assign weights to the criteria. These weights are utilized in the benchmarking phase. Third, individual and group fuzzy decision by opinion score method (FDOSM) techniques are integrated to benchmark the EEO models based on the weights acquired. The FWZIC weighting reveals that the public source code criterion has the highest weight (0.3347), while redistribution has the lowest weight (0.1021). The group FDOSM results show that the OSeMOSYS model ranks first with the highest score (0.1595), while the DNE21+, MARIA, and MESSAGE models have the lowest score (0.0646), ranking them last. Systematic ranking, sensitivity ranking, and comparative analysis verify the proposed evaluation and benchmarking framework.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Stakeholder-Oriented Optimization of Pavement Maintenance Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach
    Eddula, Sai Vighnesh
    Peraka, Naga Siva Pavani
    Biligiri, Krishna Prapoorna
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 17 (03) : 787 - 799
  • [22] Stakeholder-Oriented Optimization of Pavement Maintenance Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach
    Sai Vighnesh Eddula
    Naga Siva Pavani Peraka
    Krishna Prapoorna Biligiri
    [J]. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 2024, 17 : 787 - 799
  • [23] A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for longitudinal data
    Chejarla, Kalyana C.
    Vaidya, Omkarprasad S.
    [J]. OPSEARCH, 2024, 61 (03) : 1013 - 1060
  • [24] Integrated process capability and multi-criteria decision-making approach
    Cansu Dağsuyu
    Ulviye Polat
    Ali Kokangül
    [J]. Soft Computing, 2021, 25 : 7169 - 7180
  • [25] Multi-criteria linguistic interval group decision-making approach
    Wang Jianqiang & Chen Xiaohong School of Business
    [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2008, (05) : 934 - 938
  • [26] Multi-criteria linguistic interval group decision-making approach
    Wang Jianqiang
    Chen Xiaohong
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND ELECTRONICS, 2008, 19 (05) : 934 - 938
  • [27] Preferential Selection of Software Quality Models Based on a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach
    Verma, Ankita
    Agarwal, Anushka
    Rathore, Manisha
    Bisht, Sneha
    Singh, Deepti
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE INNOVATION, 2023, 11 (01) : 26 - 26
  • [28] Integrated process capability and multi-criteria decision-making approach
    Dagsuyu, Cansu
    Polat, Ulviye
    Kokangul, Ali
    [J]. SOFT COMPUTING, 2021, 25 (10) : 7169 - 7180
  • [29] Hospital performance management: A multi-criteria decision-making approach
    Tyagi, Aman
    Singh, Preetvanti
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, 2019, 12 (04) : 286 - 291
  • [30] A multi-criteria decision-making approach for schizophrenia treatment techniques
    Ozsahin, Ilker
    Abebe, Samuel Tadesse
    Mok, Greta S. P.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY, 2020, 22 (02): : 52 - 61