Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

AHP–TOPSIS hybrid decision-making analysis: Simav integrated system case study

  • Published:
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, Simav Integrated Geothermal Energy System (Simav-IGES) was evaluated by using Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) which is one of the multi-criteria decision-making techniques. In the decision-making process, the importance scale of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to determine the masses of TOPSIS to obtain more sensitive results. In this way, a new model was developed combining AHP and TOPSIS. The used data were obtained from the analytical calculations of Simav-IGES. IGES was formed of the electricity generation, district heating of residences, district heating of greenhouses, and spas. For this purpose, the electricity generation amount (ORC), the number of heated residences (RH), and the heated area of greenhouses were determined through energy, exergy, and economical methods. The present status of spas was taken into account for the balneology use. As a conclusion, it is determined that the best design is Design 16 for the all basis included solution in Simav-IGES. Design 16 is the one which includes the highest residential heating number with 16,311 and the lowest power generation with 41,153 kWh. In this case, the situation of greenhouse heating has a medium value of 631,449 m2. So, it is the optimum application to install the integrated system taking into lower outlet temperatures (313.15 K) of power plant (ORC).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmadi MH, Mehrpooya M, Pourfayaz F. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi objective optimization of performance of a Carbon dioxide power cycle driven by geothermal energy with liquefied natural gas as its heat sink. Energy Conv Manag. 2006;119:422–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdollahpour A, Ghasempour R, Kasaeian A, Ahmadi MH. Thermodynamic and exergy analysis and optimization of a transcritical CO2 power cycle driven by geothermal energy with liquefied natural gas as its heat sink. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;109:640–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Naseeri A, Bidi M, Ahmadi MH. Thermodynamic and exergy analysis of a hydrogen and permeate water production process by a solar-driven transcritical CO2 power cycle with liquefied natural gas heat sink. Renew Energy. 2017;113:1215–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashouri M, Ahmadi MH, Pourkiaei SM, Astaraei FR, Ghasempour R, Ming T, Hemati JH. Exergy and exergo-economic analysis and optimization of a solar double pressure organic Rankine cycle. Therm Sci Eng Prog. 2018;6:72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arslan O. Technoeconomic analysis of electricity generation from wind energy in Kutahya, Turkey. Energy. 2010;35(1):120–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mohammedi A, Ahmadi MH, Bidi M, Ghazvini M, Ming T. Exergy and economic analyses of replacing feedwater heaters in a Rankine cycle with parabolic trough collectors. Energy Rep. 2018;4:243–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahmadi MH, Sadaghiani MS, Pourfayaz F, Ghazvini M, Hahian O, Mehrpooya M, Wongwises S. Energy and exergy analyses of a solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine-organic Rankine cycle power plant with liquefied natural gas as heat sink. Entropy. 2018;20(7):484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Arslan O. Exergoeconomic evaluation of electricity generation by the medium temperature geothermal resources, using a Kalina cycle: Simav case study. Int J Therm Sci. 2010;49(9):1866–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mirzei M, Ahmadi MH, Mobin M, Nazari MA, Alayi R. Energy, exergy and economics analysis of an ORC working with several fluids and utilizes smelting furnace gases as heat source. Therm Sci Eng Prog. 2018;5:230–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Acar MS, Arslan O. Energy and exergy analysis of solar energy-integrated, geothermal energy-powered organic Rankine cycle. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2019;137:659–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arslan O. Power generation from medium temperature geothermal resources: ANN-based optimization of Kalina cycle system-34. Energy. 2011;36(5):2528–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arslan O, Yetik O. ANN modeling of an ORC-binary geothermal power plant: simav case study. Energy Sources Part A: Recov Util and Environ Eff. 2014;36(4):418–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Arslan O. ANN-based determination of optimum working conditions of residential combustors with respect to optimum insulation. Energy Sources Part A: Recov Util and Environ Eff. 2014;36(23):2603–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cota LP, Vitor N, Coelho VN, Guimaraes FG, Souza MJF. Bi-criteria formulation for green scheduling with unrelated parallel machines with sequence-dependent setup times. Int Trans Oper Res. 2018;2018:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Covasa MT, Silva AC, Dias LC. Multicriteria decision analysis for sustainable datacenters location. Int Trans Oper Res. 2013;2013(20):269–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning-a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev. 2004;8(4):365–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yu D. Multiattribute decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy interaction average operators: a comparison. Int Trans Oper Res. 2015;22:1017–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang Y, Xu Z. Efficiency evaluation of sustainable water management using the HF-TODIM method. Int Trans Oper Res. 2019;26:747–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Afgan NH, Carvalho MG. Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants. Energy. 2002;27:739–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Arslan AE. Multi-Criteria Decision Making OF Simav Integrated Geothermal Energy System: AHP-EATWOS Hybrid Analysis. Curr Res in Humanit and Soc Sci. First Edition, Ivpe Cetinje Publicat, Montenegro, 2020. pp. 83–107.

  21. Arslan O, Arslan AE, Kandemir SY. EATWOS Analysis of s-Type ORC-Binary Geothermal Power Plant. International Congress on Afro-Eurasian Research V, 19-22 April 2019, Nicosia, Cyprus.

  22. Arslan O, Arslan, AE, Kandemir SY. Optimization of Simav Integrated Geothermal Energy System by EATWOS. International Congress on Afro - Eurasian Research V, 19-22 April 2019, Nicosia, Cyprus.

  23. Arslan O, Arslan AE, Acar MS. Multi-criteria making-decision modeling of b-type ORC-binary geothermal power plant: EATWOS analysis. BSEU J Sci. 2019;6:29–48. https://doi.org/10.35193/bseufbd.561668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Arslan O, Arslan AE, Acar MS. o-Tipi ORC-binary Jeotermal Güç Santrali Optimizasyonu: EATWOS Analizi. BSEU J Sci. 2019;6:222–36. https://doi.org/10.35193/bseufbd.601745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cavallaro F, Ciraolo L. A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian Island. Energy Policy. 2005;33:235–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Arslan AE, Acar MS, Arslan O. Effectiveness Analysis of ORC-Binary Geothermal Power Plant Using Data Enveloping. Proceedings of International Congress on Afro - Eurasian Research IV, pp. 110–118, 27–29 April 2018, Budapest, Hungary.

  27. Arslan AE, Acar MS, Arslan O. Data Enveloping Based Effectiveness Analysis of Integrated Geothermal System: Simav Case Study. Proceedings of International Congress on Afro - Eurasian Research IV, pp. 119–125, 27–29 April 2018, Budapest, Hungary.

  28. Georgopoulou E, Lalas D, Papagiannakis L. A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy option. Eur J Oper Res. 1997;103(9):38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Goumas MG, Lygerou VA, Papayannakis LE. Computational methods for planning and evaluating geothermal energy projects. Energy Policy. 1999;27:147–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mirasgedis S, Diakoulaki D. Multicriteria analysis vs. externalities assessment for the comparative evaluation of electricity generation systems. Eur J Oper Res. 1997;102:364–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Siksnelyte I, Zavadskas EK, Streimikiene D, Sharma D. An overview of multi-criteria decision-making methods in dealing with sustainable energy development issues. Energies. 2018;11(10):2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11102754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Taha RA, Daim T. Multi-Criteria Applications in Renewable Energy Analysis, a Literature Review. Res and Technol Manag in the Electr Ind, Green Energy and Tech. Springer, London, 2013.

  33. Boran FE. A multidimensional analysis to evaluate district heating systems. Energy Sources Part B. 2013;8:122–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang W, Eling M. An efficiency comparison of the non-life insurance industry in the BRIC countries. Eur J Oper Res. 2013;226(3):577–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Oztaysi B, Onar SC, Kahraman C, Yavuz M. Multi-criteria alternative-fuel technology selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Transp Res Part D. 2017;53:128–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Peters ML, Zelewski S. Efficiency Analysis Under Consideration of Satisficing Levels for Output Quantities. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society (POMS), April 28-May 01 2006, Boston, USA.

  37. Shen Y, Hermans E, Brijs T, Wets G. Data envelopment analysis for composite indicators: a multiple layer model. Soc Indic Res. 2013;114:739–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Si J, Halburd LM, Nasiri F, Bell S. Assessment of building-integrated green technologies: a review and case study on applications of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method. Sustain Cities Soc. 2016;27:106–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang B, Xie HL, Ren HY, Li X, Chen L, Wu BC. Application of AHP, TOPSIS, and TFNs to plant selection for phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils in shale gas and oil fields. J Clean Prod. 2019;233:13–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Yadav VK, Kumar N, Ghosh S, Singh K. Indian thermal power plant challenges and remedies via application of modified data envelopment analysis. Int Trans Oper Res. 2014;21:955–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1(1):83–98.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Saaty TL. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 2nd ed. Pittsburgh: RWS Publ; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Karahalios H. The application of the AHP-TOPSIS for evaluating ballast water treatment systems by ship operators. Transp Res Part D. 2017;52:172–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sennaroglu B, Celebi GV. A military airport location selection by AHP integrated PROMETHEE and VIKOR methods. Transp Res Part D. 2018;59:160–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Muhsen DH, Haider HT, Al-Nidawi YM, Khatib T. Domestic load management based on integration of MODE and AHP-TOPSIS decision making methods. Sustain Cities Soc. 2019;50:101651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sun CC. Combining grey relation analysis and entropy model for evaluating the operational performance: an empirical study. Qual Quant. 2014;48:1589–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Arslan O, Ozgur MA, Kose R, Tugcu A. Exergoeconomic evaluation on the optimum heating circuit system of Simav geothermal district heating system. Energy Build. 2009;41:1325–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Arslan O, Kose R. Exergoeconomic optimization of the integrated geothermal system in Simav, Kutahya. Energy Convers Manag. 2010;51:663–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Arslan O, Ozgur MA, Kose R. Electricity generation ability of the Simav geothermal field: a techno-economic approach. Energy Sources Part A: Recov Util Environ Eff. 2012;34:1130–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Myers JH, Alpert MI. Determinant buying attributes: meaning and measurement. Marketing. 1968;32(10):13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program of Quality Control in Production, Machine and Metal Technologies Department, Vocational School, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, 11230, Bilecik, Turkey

    Asli Ergenekon Arslan

  2. Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, 11230, Bilecik, Turkey

    Oguz Arslan

  3. Industrial Engineering, Department Engineering Faculty, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, 11230, Bilecik, Turkey

    Suheyla Yerel Kandemir

Authors
  1. Asli Ergenekon Arslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oguz Arslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suheyla Yerel Kandemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oguz Arslan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

The authors declare that this study does not include any inconvenient or illegal data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arslan, A.E., Arslan, O. & Kandemir, S.Y. AHP–TOPSIS hybrid decision-making analysis: Simav integrated system case study. J Therm Anal Calorim 145, 1191–1202 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-10270-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-10270-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation