em599_sunum_muratozcan_ahmetkoksalcaliskan
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SITE SELECTION for
WIND-SOLAR HYBRID POWER PLANT
in TURKEY
Ahmet Köksal ÇALIŞKANMurat ÖZCAN
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. İsmail Serdar BAKAL
Middle East Technical UniversityIndustrial Engineering DepartmentEngineering Management Program
![Page 2: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OUTLINE
1. Introduction2. Literature Survey3. AHP with BOCR and Case Study4. Ideal Matter Element and Case Study5. Conclusion & Future Works
![Page 3: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Problem DefinitionTotal Wind Energy Capacity– World vs. Turkey
![Page 4: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Problem DefinitonTotal Wind Energy Production– World vs. Turkey
![Page 5: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Problem DefinitonTotal Solar Energy Capacity– World vs. Turkey
![Page 6: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Problem DefinitonTotal Solar Energy Production– World vs. Turkey
![Page 7: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Problem DefinitonTurkey’s Strategic Plan (Ministry of Energy National Resources)
![Page 8: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Problem Definiton
Wind Power+ Larger power output at nighttime- Lower power output at daytime
Solar Power- Lower or no power output at nighttime+ Larger power output at daytime
Mutually Complementary
Hybrid Renewable Energy System
![Page 9: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Literature SurveyMulti Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods Used in Site Selection
• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) – Prof.Dr Thomas L. Saaty (1980)– Hierachical (Goal, Criteria, Alternatives)– Pairwise Comparison– Consistency Check
• Analytic Network Process (ANP) – Prof.Dr Thomas L. Saaty (1980)– General Form of AHP (uses Pairwise Comparison)– Network Structure (Feedback)– Special Software Requirement (Super Decisions, ANP Solver)
• Elimination et Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) – Bernard Roy (1960)– Order Relation (Outranking) Based on Thresholds and Weights– No Hierarchical Structure– Needs More Computational Effort
![Page 10: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Literature SurveyMulti Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods Used in Site Selection
• Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) –Hwang and Yoon (1981)
– Euclidian Distances to Positive Ideal Solution & Negative Ideal Solution– Ranking is Based on Closeness Values
• PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations) – Brans, Mareschal and Vincke (1982)
– Decision Process is based on Pairwise Comparison – Comparison is made according to Predefined Preference Functions (Gaussian,
V-Shape, Linear, U-Shape etc.) for each Criterion
• Matter Element Method (ME) – Wen (1994)– Will be discussed in detail
![Page 11: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Comparison of MCDM MethodsMethod Comments
AHPPro’s
① The consistency of the evaluation procedure can be measured;② it is applicable for quantitative and qualitative criteria;③ it can handle the complex decision problem in practice and theory;④ it is easy to be calculated for most managers
Con’s① Consistency is difficult to achieve when the criteria and alternativesare too many
TOPSISPro’s
① It can measure the distance of the alternatives form the idealsolution;② it can obtain the result which is closest to the ideal solution;③ it is easy to use and understandable
Con’s① Normalization is required to solve multi-dimensional problem;② it cannot check the consistency
![Page 12: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Comparison of MCDM MethodsMethod Comments
ANPPro’s
① It can be capable of handling feedbacks and interdependencies; ② it depicts the dependence and influences of the factors involved to the goal or higher-level performance objective
Con’s① Specific software is required to solve it
ELECTRE
Pro’s
① It use thresholds of indifference and preference, and outrankingmethod to make decision; ② it is applicable for quantitative and qualitative criteria; ③ it is applicable even when there are incomparable alternatives
Con’s
① It is difficult to conceptualize the problem in absence of hierarchical structure; ② it is comparatively difficult to solve than AHP due to complex computational procedure
![Page 13: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Why AHP with BOCR? Why Ideal Matter Element?
• Analytic Hierarchy Process with Benefit, Opportunity, Cost & Risk(AHP with BOCR)– Less Workload– Popularity– Consistency Check– Further evaluation steps that provide merits of positive criteria of Benefit and
Opportunity and negative criteria of Cost and Risk• Ideal Matter Element Method (IME)
– relies on the grey areas in the real world instead of strict black and white areas– guarantee the information integrity with establishing correlation degree– Ideal Matter Element method defines further evaluation steps that provides more
detailed analyses (Closeness Degrees).
![Page 14: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
AHP with BOCR-Flow ChartProblem Definiton
Criteria Definition Alternative Selection
Pairwise Comparison of Criteria
Data Collection
Pairwise Comparison of Merits (B, O, C, R)
Weight Determination
Perfomance of Alternative wrt
Criteria
Ranking of Alternatives
![Page 15: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Alternative Selection
![Page 16: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Alternative Selection(District in City)
![Page 17: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Criteria Selection Type and Merits
Selected Criteria Type of CriteriaWind Speed QuantitativeWind Capacity Factor QuantitativeGross Solar Radiation QuantitativeSunshine Hours QuantitativeProbability of Winning a Bid QualitativeElectricity Consumption QuantitativeConstruction Cost QualitativeOperation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost QualitativeTraffic Convenience Degree QualitativePollution and Natural Concerns QualitativeLocal Residents Attitude QualitativeInterest Conflict QualitativeGeological/topographic condition QualitativeLand Usage Condition Qualitative
MeritBenefitBenefitBenefitBenefit
OpportunityBenefitCostCostCostCostRiskRiskCostRisk
![Page 18: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Data CollectionCriteria Criteria Quantification
Probability of Winning a Bid 1 – Very low; 2 – low; 3 – normal; 4 – high; 5 – very high
Construction Cost 1 – Very low; 2 – low; 3 – normal; 4 – high; 5 – very high
Operation and Maintenance Cost 1 – Very low; 2 – low; 3 – normal; 4 – high; 5 – very high
Traffic Convenience Degree 5 – Not convenient; 4 – less convenient; 3 – convenient; 2 – more convenient; 1 – very convenient
Pollution and Natural Concerns 5 – Very serious; 4 – serious; 3 – normal; 2 – not serious; 1 – no pollution
Local Residents Attitude 5 – Very negative; 4 – negative; 3 – neutral; 2 – positive; 1 – very positive
Interest Conflict 5 – Very negative; 4 – negative; 3 – neutral; 2 – positive; 1 – very positive
Geological/topographic condition 5 – Very tough; 4 – tough; 3 – normal; 2 – suitable; 1 – very suitable
Land Usage Condition 5 – Very difficult; 4 – difficult; 3 – normal; 2 – easy; 1 – very easy
![Page 19: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
AHP with BOCR-Flow ChartProblem Definiton
Criteria Definition Alternative Selection
Pairwise Comparison of Criteria
Data Collection
Pairwise Comparison of Merits (B, O, C, R)
Weight Determination
Perfomance of Alternative wrt
Criteria
Ranking of Alternatives
![Page 20: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
AHP with BOCRPairwise Comparison
Pairwise Comparison
of MeritsBenefit Opportunity Cost Risk
Benefit 1
Opportunity 1
Cost 1
Risk 1
Satty’s Nine-Point Scale
Pairwise Comparison of Criteria Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 ... ... ... Criterion n
Criterion 1 1Criterion 2 1Criterion 3 1
. .
. .
. .Criterion n 1
Intensity of Relative Importance with Fuzzy Number Definition
1 equally important3 moderately important5 important7 very important9 extremely important
2,4,6,8 intermediate values between the two neighboring scales
Reciprocals If activity i has one of the abovenumbers assigned to it when
compared with activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when
compared with i
![Page 21: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
AHP with BOCRConsistency Check
Consistency Index (CI):
1max
n
nCI n=number of criteria and
= maximum eigenvalue
Consistency Ratio (CR) CR=CI/RI
max
Random Index (RI):# of Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45
CR <0.1 ConsistentCR >0.1 Not Consistent
![Page 22: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
AHP with BOCRCase - Consistency Check
Consistency Ratios for Comparison of Criteria Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4
Evaluation 1 0.07704 0.06716 0.17125 0.20018Evaluation 2 N/A N/A 0.02664 0.02401
Consistency Ration for Comparison of B,O,C,R Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4
Evaluation 1 0.07371 0.09204 0.01611 0.10678Evaluation 2 N/A N/A N/A 0.00293
![Page 23: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
AHP with BOCRWeights of Criteria and Merits
Pairwise Comparison
of MeritsBenefit Opportunity Cost Risk
Benefit 1
Opportunity 1
Cost 1
Risk 1
Pairwise Comparison
of CriteriaCri. 1 Cri.2 Cri. 3 .. .. .. Cri. n
Criterion 1 1
Criterion 2 1
Criterion 3 1
. .
. .
. .
Criterion n 1
Merits Weights
Benefit b
Opportunity o
Cost c
Risk r
Criteria Weights
Criterion 1 w1
Criterion 2 w2
Criterion 3 w3
. .
. .
. .
Criterion n wn
![Page 24: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
AHP with BOCRCase - Weights of Criteria
Criteria Weights RankWind Capacity Factor 0.1973 1Wind Speed 0.1032 2Gross Solar Radiation 0.0984 3Construction Cost 0.0876 4Sunshine Hours 0.0815 5Probability of Winning a Bid 0.0775 6Land Usage Condition 0.0715 7Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.0567 8Geological/topographic condition 0.0540 9Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.0504 10Traffic Convenience Degree 0.0481 11Electricty Consumption 0.0315 12Interest Conflict 0.0247 13Local Residents Attitude 0.0174 14
![Page 25: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
AHP with BOCRCase - Weights of Merits
Merit Abbreviation of WeightBenefit b
Opportunity oCost cRisk r
Weights0.420.110.310.17
![Page 26: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Criteria Weights Merit Local Weights(Weights Based on Merits)
Wind Speed 0.104 Benefit 0.201 Wind Capacity Factor 0.199 Benefit 0.387 Gross Solar Radiation 0.099 Benefit 0.192 Sunshine Hours 0.082 Benefit 0.159 Probability of Winning a Bid 0.077 Opportunities 1.000 Electricty Consumption 0.031 Benefit 0.061 Construction Cost 0.087 Cost 0.296 Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.056 Cost 0.191 Traffic Convenience Degree 0.048 Cost 0.162 Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.050 Cost 0.170 Local Residents Attitude 0.017 Risk 0.153 Interest Conflict 0.024 Risk 0.216 Geological/topographic condition 0.054 Cost 0.182 Land Usage Condition 0.071 Risk 0.630
AHP with BOCRCase - Local Weights of Criteria
![Page 27: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
AHP with BOCR - CaseNormalized Performance Values of Alternatives
CriteriaAlternative 1
İzmirKaraburun
Alternative 2MuğlaMerkez
Alternative 3AntalyaAkseki
Alternative 4KonyaMerkez
Alternative 5KaramanMerkez
Alternative 6MersinGülnar
Wind Speed (m/s) 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.64Wind Capacity Factor (%) 0.71 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.58Gross Solar Radiation (KWh/m^2-year) 0.38 0.54 0.63 0.46 0.54 0.54Sunshine Hours (hours) 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.64Probability of Winning a Bid 0.42 0.58 0.73 0.53 0.49 0.48Electricity Consumption (MWh) 0.51 0.07 0.19 0.16 0.02 0.11Construction Cost 0.52 0.49 0.66 0.34 0.36 0.54Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.35 0.49 0.83 0.63 0.71 0.69Traffic Convenience Degree 0.31 0.49 0.71 0.44 0.53 0.44Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.85 0.74 0.79 0.44 0.44 0.64Local Residents Attitude 0.85 0.69 0.77 0.31 0.26 0.44Interest Conflict 0.89 0.64 0.66 0.24 0.24 0.40Geological/topographic condition 0.37 0.53 0.77 0.44 0.53 0.40Land Usage Condition 0.73 0.62 0.89 0.31 0.31 0.60
![Page 28: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Case Study Evaluation- CaseAHP with BOCR
Merit Performance Score Type
İzmirKaraburun
MuğlaMerkez
AntalyaAkseki
KonyaMerkez
KaramanMerkez
MersinGülnar
BenefitsRelative 0.63016 0.53375 0.60771 0.51968 0.61468 0.56809Normalized 0.18139 0.15364 0.17493 0.14959 0.17694 0.16352
OpportunitiesRelative 0.42295 0.58259 0.73257 0.52643 0.48990 0.47568Normalized 0.13094 0.18036 0.22679 0.16298 0.15167 0.14726
Costs
Relative 0.48113 0.53972 0.74424 0.44627 0.49707 0.54635Normalized 0.14782 0.16582 0.22866 0.13711 0.15272 0.16786Reciprocal 6.76491 6.03047 4.37331 7.29322 6.54795 5.95732Reciprocal Normalized
0.18300 0.16313 0.11830 0.19729 0.17713 0.16115
Risks
Relative 0.78497 0.63400 0.82575 0.29675 0.28911 0.53260Normalized 0.23340 0.18851 0.24553 0.08823 0.08596 0.15836Reciprocal 4.28448 5.30468 4.07289 11.33354 11.63270 6.31461Reciprocal Normalized
0.09977 0.12353 0.09484 0.26392 0.27089 0.14705
![Page 29: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
AHP with BOCRSyntesis of B, O, C, R
a. AdditivePi = bBi + oOi + c(1/Ci)Normalized + r(1/Ri)Normalized
b. Probabilistic AdditivePi = bBi + oOi + c(1−Ci) + r(1−Ri)
c. SubtractivePi=bBi+oOi−cCi−rRi
d. MultiplicativePi= (Bi Oi ) / (Ci Ri)
e. Multiplicative Priority PowersPi=Bi
b Oio [(1/Ci) Normalized]c [(1/Ri) Normalized]r
![Page 30: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Case Study Evaluation-AHP with BOCR
Final Priorities and Ranks
Additive Probabilistic Additive Subtractive Multiplicative
Priority Powers Multiplicative Final Decision
Alternatives Priority(P)
Rank(R) P R P R P R P R Final Rank
İzmirKaraburun
0.162 3 0.479 4 0.005 4 0.158 3 0.688 6 4
MuğlaMerkez
0.154 5 0.475 5 0.001 5 0.150 5 0.886 4 5
AntalyaAkseki
0.149 6 0.460 6 -0.013 6 0.144 6 0.706 5 6
KonyaMerkez
0.184 2 0.497 2 0.023 2 0.180 2 2.015 2 2
KaramanMerkez
0.189 1 0.503 1 0.029 1 0.186 1 2.044 1 1
MersinGülnar
0.158 4 0.480 3 0.006 3 0.158 4 0.905 3 3
![Page 31: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element MethodFlow Chart
Problem Definiton
Criteria DefinitionAlternative Selection
Construction of Matter Elements Questionnaire For Experts
Evaluation of Alternatives with Correlation and Closeness Degrees
Data Collection Expert Formation
Construction of Classical Matter Elements
Criteria Weighting
![Page 32: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element MethodMatter Element Structure
• Matter Element Structure
nn
m
v
vv
c
cc
R..
.
.2
1
2
1
Values of the Criterion
The Criterion
«Matter Element» of the alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Criterion 1 8 5.5 6
Criterion 2 4000 7200 6400
Criterion 3 4 3 4
![Page 33: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element MethodMatter Element Structure
• Normalization of Matter Elements
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Criterion 1 0.45 0.23 0.27
Criterion 2 0.17 0.70 0.57
Criterion 3 0.80 0.60 0.80
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Min. value ofthe criteria
Max. value of the criteria
Criterion 1 8 5.5 6 3 14
Criterion 2 4000 7200 6400 3000 9000
Criterion 3 4 3 4 0 5
![Page 34: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element Method Case- Matter Elements
Criteria İzmirKaraburun
MuğlaMerkez
AntalyaAkseki
KonyaMerkez
KaramanMerkez
MersinGülnar
Wind Speed 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.64Wind Capacity Factor 0.71 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.58Gross Solar Radiation 0.38 0.54 0.63 0.46 0.54 0.54Sunshine Hours 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.64
Probability of Winning a Bid 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.60 0.50 0.55
Electricity Consumption 0.51 0.07 0.19 0.16 0.02 0.11
Construction Cost 0.48 0.56 0.40 0.64 0.60 0.52Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.64 0.56 0.28 0.44 0.36 0.40Traffic Convenience Degree 0.68 0.56 0.36 0.56 0.48 0.56Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.28 0.36 0.32 0.60 0.60 0.44Local Residents Attitude 0.28 0.40 0.32 0.68 0.72 0.60Interest Conflict 0.24 0.44 0.40 0.76 0.76 0.64
Geological/topographic condition 0.60 0.52 0.32 0.56 0.52 0.60
Land Usage Condition 0.36 0.44 0.24 0.68 0.68 0.48
![Page 35: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element Method Weighting
• Sort the criterion bottom to up
• Rank the criterion
• Weight the criterion
Grade Explanation1 same importance as below1.2 a little more important than below1.4 obviously more important than below1.6 more strongly important than below1.8 very much important than below}
1
2 21
n
k
k
iii rw Importance Ranking Ranks Weights
Criterion 1 0.44Criterion 2 1 0.44Criterion 3 1.6 0.28
![Page 36: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element Method Case-Weights
Criteria Weights Rank
Wind Capacity Factor 0.25 1Wind Speed 0.19 2Gross Solar Radiation 0.17 3Sunshine Hours 0.17 4Land Usage Condition 0.12 5Construction Cost 0.10 6Probability of Winning a Bid 0.10 7Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.09 8Geological/topographic condition 0.09 9Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.07 10Electricity Consumption 0.06 11Traffic Convenience Degree 0.05 12Interest Conflict 0.03 13Local Residents Attitude 0.02 14
![Page 37: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element MethodClassical Matter Element Structure
• Classical Matter Element Structure
Value Ranges of the Criterion
«Classical Matter Element» of Level j
jn
j
j
n
j
X
X
X
c
c
c
R..
.
.2
1
2
1
Great min (a) max (b)
Criterion 1 0.6 1
Criterion 2 0.6 1
Criterion 3 0.5 1
Bad min (a) max (b)
Criterion 1 0 0.3
Criterion 2 0 0.4
Criterion 3 0 0.2
![Page 38: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Ideal Matter Method Case- Classical Matter Elements
Criteria Great Max
Great Min
Good Max
Good Min
Normal Max
NormalMin
Poor Max
Poor Min
Bad Max
Bad Min
Wind Speed 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.54 0.54 0.41 0.41 0.23 0.23 0.00Wind Capacity Factor 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.63 0.63 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.00Gross Solar Radiation 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.65 0.65 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.17 0.00Sunshine Hours 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.00Probability of Winning a Bid 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.00Electricity Consumption 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.61 0.61 0.41 0.41 0.14 0.14 0.00Construction Cost 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.74 0.74 0.58 0.58 0.45 0.45 0.00Operation and Maintenance Cost 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.00
Traffic Convenience Degree 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.65 0.65 0.48 0.48 0.25 0.25 0.00Pollution and Natural Concerns 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.00
Local Residents Attitude 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.63 0.63 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.18 0.00Interest Conflict 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.00Geological/topographic condition 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.70 0.70 0.53 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.00
Land Usage Condition 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.72 0.72 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.23 0.00
![Page 39: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element MethodEvaluation
• Correlation between each alternative and each level is calculated
jijijijiimimj abbavvD 5.05.0
n
iimjij vDwmK
11
nn
m
v
vv
c
cc
R..
.
.2
1
2
1
jn
j
j
n
j
X
X
X
c
c
c
R..
.
.2
1
2
1 jiji ba ,
The range of each criterion
![Page 40: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element Method Case-ME Evaluation
İzmirKaraburun
MuğlaMerkez
AntalyaAkseki
KonyaMerkez
KaramanMerkez
MersinGülnar
Great 0.59 0.54 0.52 0.59 0.63 0.57
Good 0.82 0.81 0.75 0.86 0.86 0.84
Normal 0.90 0.99 0.83 1.01 0.93 0.98
Poor 0.85 0.91 0.82 0.86 0.78 0.86
Bad 0.57 0.63 0.65 0.58 0.53 0.60Matter Element Evaluation
Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
![Page 41: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element Method Evaluation
• Ideal Matter Element approach states Positive Closeness and Negative Closeness Degrees in order to discriminate these alternatives.
Pn
V
V
P
Vc
c
c
RP
P
n
.
...
2
1
2
1
Nn
V
V
N
Vc
c
c
RN
N
n
.
...
2
1
2
1
n
iPiiij VvwH
11
Niiij VvwH 1
HHH
Hjj
jj
![Page 42: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Ideal Matter Element Method Case-IME Evaluation
İzmirKaraburun
MuğlaMerkez
AntalyaAkseki
KonyaMerkez
KaramanMerkez
MersinGülnar
Positive Closeness Degree 0.833 0.779 0.760 0.825 0.872 0.809
Negative Closeness Degree 0.793 0.848 0.866 0.801 0.754 0.817
Comprehensive Closeness Degree 0.512 0.479 0.467 0.507 0.536 0.498Ranks Based on Ideal Matter Element Evaluation 2 5 6 3 1 4
![Page 43: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Conclusion• Site Selection for Wind-Solar Hybrid Power Plants based on two different
MCDM methods (AHP with BOCR and IME).
• As far as we have studied, there is no study that discussed the same problem based on two different MCDM methods together.
• AHP with BOCR method apply a preprocess called as consistency check.
• Weighting: AHP with BOCR / eigenvector – IME / Experts’ Ranking
• Evaluation: AHP with BOCR / synthesizing methods – IME / Correlation and Closeness Degrees
![Page 44: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Future Works• Interviews with the experts • The steps for the solution of a real life problem:
– The experts eliminate the alternatives based on closeness to the mines, transportation and their experiences
– The experts made some general evaluations over a general region with the help of some specific programs
– If the experts found the region suitable for investment, they analyze the region in detail which means pointwise analysis (time consuming and expensive).
– After all the evaluations are made, if the alternative is found to be suitable, investor decides to construct the plant or not.
• From this point of view, this study constitutes a good starting point for the investors. On the other hand, this study can be enhanced by pointwise analyses which require more professional touch, detailed data and considerable much more time.
![Page 45: EM599_Sunum_MuratOZCAN_AhmetKoksalCALISKAN](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030313/58e99ed71a28ab9c318b47ad/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Thank youAny Questions?