Processing, Please wait...

  • Publisher Home
  • Home
  • 🔙 Back
  • 📚 Journals
    • ⚙️ IJIEC - Industrial Engineering Computations
    • 🌐 IJDNS - Data and Network Science
    • 🧪 CCL - Current Chemistry Letters
    • 💹 AC - Accounting
    • 🎯 DSL - Decision Science Letters
    • 🚛 USCM - Uncertain Supply Chain Management
    • 🏗️ JPM - Journal of Project Management
    • 🏥 HE - Healthcare Engineering
    • 📈 SCI - Scientometrica
    • 🔩 ESM - Engineering Solid Mechanics
    • 🌿 JFS - Journal of Future Sustainability
    • 💼 MSL - Management Science Letters
  • 📝 Submit Article
  • 📊 Statistics
  • 📋 About
    • 📄 About Us
    • 📰 Blog
    • 📢 News
    • 📧 Contact
  • 📺 Tutorial
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Decision Science Letters » Evaluation and selection of energy technologies using an integrated graph theory and analytic hierarchy process methods

⭐ Highly Cited Articles

  • Jaya Algorithm
  • Rao Algorithm
  • TLBO Algorithm
  • ChatGPT and Blended Learning

Journals

  • IJIEC (840)
  • IJDS (1032)
  • DSL (759)
  • ESM (434)
  • CCL (563)
  • JPM (350)
  • AC (572)
  • JFS (106)
  • MSL (2658)
  • USCM (1104)
  • HE (54)
  • SCI (53)

DSL Volumes

    • ▼ Volume 15 (110)
      • Issue 1 (19)
      • Issue 2 (22)
      • Issue 3 (32)
      • Issue 4 (37)
    • ▼ Volume 14 (87)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (23)
      • Issue 3 (25)
      • Issue 4 (18)
    • ▼ Volume 13 (78)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (18)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (20)
    • ▼ Volume 12 (64)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (24)
      • Issue 3 (13)
      • Issue 4 (15)
    • ▼ Volume 11 (49)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • ▼ Volume 10 (43)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • ▼ Volume 9 (39)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • ▼ Volume 8 (38)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • ▼ Volume 7 (41)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • ▼ Volume 6 (30)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • ▼ Volume 5 (39)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • ▼ Volume 4 (48)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (12)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (12)
    • ▼ Volume 3 (53)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • ▼ Volume 2 (30)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • ▼ Volume 1 (10)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)

🔑 Keywords

Jordan(175)
Supply chain management(172)
Vietnam(154)
Customer satisfaction(124)
Performance(117)
Supply chain(115)
Artificial intelligence(108)
Service quality(101)
Competitive advantage(100)
SMEs(95)
Sustainability(94)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
optimization(88)
Financial performance(86)
TOPSIS(85)
Trust(85)
Genetic Algorithm(81)
Organizational performance(81)
Job satisfaction(81)
Social media(80)


» Show all keywords

✍️ Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(70)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(65)
Endri Endri(45)
Hotlan Siagian(43)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Dmaithan Almajali(39)
Jumadil Saputra(37)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Ahmad Makui(33)
Sautma Ronni Basana(33)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(30)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(30)
Hassan Ghodrati(30)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Mahmoud Allahham(28)


» Show all authors

🌍 Countries

1. Algeria (52)
2. Angola (2)
3. Argentina (22)
4. Armenia (2)
5. Australia (52)
6. Austria (2)
7. Bahrain (26)
8. Bangladesh (58)
9. Belarus (4)
10. Belgium (3)
11. Benin (2)
12. Benin Republic (1)
13. Bhutan (1)
14. Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)
15. Botswana (9)
16. Brazil (40)
17. Brunei (1)
18. Bulgaria (1)
19. Burkina Faso (1)
20. Cameroon (1)
Total: 121 countries

Show all countries
Decision Science Letters
ISSN 1929-5812 (Online) - ISSN 1929-5804 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 5 Issue 2 pp. 237-348, 2016

Evaluation and selection of energy technologies using an integrated graph theory and analytic hierarchy process methods Pages 237-348 PDF Download PDF

Authors: P. B. Lanjewar, R. V. Rao, A. V. Kale, J. Taler, P. Ocłoń

📋 Author Affiliations:
P.B. Lanjewar1, R.V. Rao ORCID 2, A.V. Kale3, J. Taler4, dzeń Energetycznych5, P. Ocłoń ORCID 4, dzeń Energetycznych5
1 Dept. Of Mech. Engg, St. Vincent Pallotti College of Engg. And Technology, Nagpur, India
2 Dept. Of Mech. Engg, S. V. National Institute of Technology, Surat, India
3 Dept. Of Mech. Engg, Yashwantrao Chavan College of Engineering, Nagpur, India
4 Politechnika Krakowska, Instytut Maszyn i Urza
5 Al. Jana Pawła II 37, Kraków, 31-864, Poland
doi 10.5267/j.dsl.2015.10.001
11 Source: Scopus
Crossref 4 Source: CrossRef

🔑 Keywords: Analytic hierarchy process, Energy technology, Graph theory, Multiple attribute decision making, Preference index

Abstract: The evaluation and selection of energy technologies involve a large number of attributes whose selection and weighting is decided in accordance with the social, environmental, technical and economic framework. In the present work an integrated multiple attribute decision making methodology is developed by combining graph theory and analytic hierarchy process methods to deal with the evaluation and selection of energy technologies. The energy technology selection attributes digraph enables a quick visual appraisal of the energy technology selection attributes and their interrelationships. The preference index provides a total objective score for comparison of energy technologies alternatives. Application of matrix permanent offers a better appreciation of the considered attributes and helps to analyze the different alternatives from combinatorial viewpoint. The AHP is used to assign relative weights to the attributes. Four examples of evaluation and selection of energy technologies are considered in order to demonstrate and validate the proposed method.

How to cite this paper
APA: Lanjewar, P., Rao, R., Kale, A., Taler, J & Ocłoń, P. (2016). Evaluation and selection of energy technologies using an integrated graph theory and analytic hierarchy process methods. Decision Science Letters, 5(2), 237-348.
Chicago/Turabian: Lanjewar, P., Rao, R., Kale, A., Taler, J & Ocłoń, P. 2016. "Evaluation and selection of energy technologies using an integrated graph theory and analytic hierarchy process methods." Decision Science Letters 5, no. 2 (2016): 237-348.
AMA: Lanjewar, P., Rao, R., Kale, A., Taler, J & Ocłoń, P. Evaluation and selection of energy technologies using an integrated graph theory and analytic hierarchy process methods. Decision Science Letters. 2016;5(2):237-348.

References
Afgan, N. H., & Carvalho, M. G. (2002). Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants. Energy, 27(8), 739-755.

Afgan, N. H., & Carvalho, M. G. (2004). Sustainability assessment of hydrogen energy systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 29(13), 1327-1342.

Afgan, N. H., & Carvalho, M. G. (2008). Sustainability assessment of a hybrid energy system. Energy Policy, 36(8), 2903-2910.

Afgan, N. H., Pilavachi, P. A., & Carvalho, M. G. (2007). Multi-criteria evaluation of natural gas resources. Energy Policy, 35(1), 704-713.

Amer, M., & Daim, T. U. (2011). Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: a case of Pakistan. Energy for Sustainable Development,15(4), 420-435.

Avgelis, A., & Papadopoulos, A. M. (2009). Application of multicriteria analysis in designing HVAC systems. Energy and Buildings, 41(7), 774-780.

Begi?, F., & Afgan, N. H. (2007). Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system—Bosnian case. Energy, 32(10), 1979-1985.

Cavallaro, F. (2009). Multi-criteria decision aid to assess concentrated solar thermal technologies. Renewable Energy, 34(7), 1678-1685.

Cavallaro, F. (2010). A comparative assessment of thin-film photovoltaic production processes using the ELECTRE III method. Energy Policy, 38(1), 463-474.

Chinese, D., Nardin, G., & Saro, O. (2011). Multi-criteria analysis for the selection of space heating systems in an industrial building. Energy, 36(1), 556-565.

Diakoulaki, D., & Karangelis, F. (2007). Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost–benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(4), 716-727.

Dinca, C., Badea, A., Rousseaux, P., & Apostol, T. (2007). A multi-criteria approach to evaluate the natural gas energy systems. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5754-5765.

Garg, R. K., Agrawal, V. P., & Gupta, V. K. (2007). Coding, evaluation and selection of thermal power plants–A MADM approach. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 29(9), 657-668.

Kabak, M., & Da?deviren, M. (2014). Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Conversion and Management, 79, 25-33.

Kahraman, C., & Kaya, ?. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6270-6281.

Kahraman, C., Kaya, ?., & Cebi, S. (2009). A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy, 34(10), 1603-1616.

Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 6577-6585.

Lanjewar, P. B., Rao, R. V., & Kale, A. V. (2015). Assessment of alternative fuels for transportation using a hybrid graph theory and analytic hierarchy process method. Fuel, 154, 9-16.

Pilavachi, P. A., Chatzipanagi, A. I., & Spyropoulou, A. I. (2009). Evaluation of hydrogen production methods using the analytic hierarchy process.International Journal of hydrogen energy, 34(13), 5294-5303.

Pilavachi, P. A., Roumpeas, C. P., Minett, S., & Afgan, N. H. (2006). Multi-criteria evaluation for CHP system options. Energy Conversion and Management, 47(20), 3519-3529.

Pilavachi, P. A., Stephanidis, S. D., Pappas, V. A., & Afgan, N. H. (2009). Multi-criteria evaluation of hydrogen and natural gas fuelled power plant technologies. Applied Thermal Engineering, 29(11), 2228-2234.

Rao, R. V. (2004). Digraph and matrix methods for evaluating environmentally conscious manufacturing programs. International Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing, 12(2), 23-33.

Rao, R. V. (2006a). A decision-making framework model for evaluating flexible manufacturing systems using digraph and matrix methods. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 30(11-12), 1101-1110.

Rao, R. V. (2006b). A material selection model using graph theory and matrix approach. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 431(1), 248-255.

Rao, R. V. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. Springer Science & Business Media.

Rao, R. V. (2013). Decision making in the manufacturing environment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods –Vol.2. Springer Science & Business Media.

Rao, R. V., & Gandhi, O. P. (2001). Digraph and matrix method for the selection, identification and comparison of metal-cutting fluids. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, 215(1), 25-33.

Rao, R. V., & Padmanabhan, K. K. (2006). Selection, identification and comparison of industrial robots using digraph and matrix methods. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 22(4), 373-383.

Rao, R. V., & Parnichkun, M. (2009). Flexible manufacturing system selection using a combinatorial mathematics-based decision-making method.International Journal of Production Research, 47(24), 6981-6998.

Rastogi, M., Chauhan, A., Vaish, R., & Kishan, A. (2015). Selection and performance assessment of Phase Change Materials for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning applications. Energy Conversion and Management, 89, 260-269.

Ren, H., Gao, W., Zhou, W., & Nakagami, K. I. (2009). Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan.Energy Policy, 37(12), 5484-5493.

Saaty T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York.

Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 6). Rws Publications.

Saaty, T. L., & Tran, L. T. (2007). On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), 962-975.

Saaty T. L., & Tran L. T. (2010). Fuzzy Judgments and Fuzzy Sets. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences, 1, 23-40.

Singh, D., & Rao, R. (2011). A hybrid multiple attribute decision making method for solving problems of industrial environment. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 2(3), 631-644.
  • 68
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

📚 Journal: Decision Science Letters | 📅 Year: 2016 | 📖 Volume: 5 | 📄 Issue: 2 | 👁️ Views: 3157 | 📊 Crossref: 4

Related Articles:
  • Application of the ROV method for the selection of cutting fluids
  • An extension of compromise ranking method with interval numbers for the evaluation of renewable energy sources
  • A new view to uncertainty in Electre III method by introducing interval numbers
  • An empirical investigation to use solar–geothermal hybrid energy system for small towns
  • A hybrid multiple attribute decision making method for solving problems of industrial environment

📝 Ready to share your research?

Decision Science Letters is accepting new submissions for upcoming issues. Join our community of authors and publish your work with us.

✓ Open access
✓ Rigorous peer review
✓ Fast publication
📤 Submit Your Manuscript →

📖 Author Guidelines

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com