Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-criteria Decision-making in Carbon-Constrained Scenario for Sustainable Production Planning

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Industrial processes are constantly changing owing to increasing demand and technological growth throughout the world. These changes influence environmental, economic, and social pillars of sustainable development to a large extent. So, production needs to be carried via considering the viewpoint of sustainable development which should include multi-criteria decision-making in planning. Including multiple criteria in planning is significant as this inclusion lessens the damaging effects on different pillars of sustainable development. Also, environmental policies are usually framed such that carbon emission need not exceed certain limit. In this paper, an optimal production mix of process routes is determined while satisfying a predefined maximum limit on total carbon emission to obtain most satisfied solution (MSS) for multiple conflicting criteria. This novel approach provides an extension to TOPSIS (Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution) methodology, and an integrated TOPSIS-pinch analysis model is proposed to determine multi-criteria-prioritized factor for ranking of new process routes in carbon-constrained production planning. The obtained MSS provides a unique solution that maximizes benefit and minimizes risk in sustainable production planning. For Iron and Steel industry, energy consumption is observed to be reduced by 74.05 × 106 GJ in comparison to the production plan given by (Sinha and Chaturvedi in J Clean Product 171:312–321, 2018), proposed method facilitates to include other objectives such as operating cost and profit. The proposed methodology is generic and can be applied to other allocation networks, an example is also discussed to show its applicability in water allocation network synthesis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Abbreviations

AIS:

Anti-ideal solution

BC:

Benefit criteria

IS:

Ideal solution

LCC:

Limiting composite curve

MADM:

Multi-attribute decision-making

MCDM:

Multi-criteria decision-making

MCPF:

Multi-criteria prioritized factor

MODM:

Multi-objective decision-making

MSS:

Most satisfied solution

Mt:

Million tonne

NBC:

Non-benefit criteria

PA:

Pinch analysis

TOPSIS :

Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution

WAN:

Water allocation network

A ∗ :

Set of ideal solutions

A ′ :

Set of anti-ideal solutions

\({CP}_i^k\) :

Criteria parameter of ith new process route for kth criteria

m:

Last entry of kth criteria

EF d :

Emission factor of demand

EF i :

Emission factor of ith new process route

EF j :

Emission factor of jth existing process route

EF p :

Emission factor at the pinch point

CE max :

Maximum limit on carbon emission

H:

Matrix of new process routes and criteria

Q d :

Demand satisfied by production from existing and new process routes

Q i :

Production limit of ith new process route

Q j :

Production limit of jth existing process route

R :

Set of new process routes

r ik :

Normalized value of each element of matrix H

S ∗ :

Set of benefit criteria

S′ :

Set of non-benefit criteria

U :

Set of existing process routes

v ik :

Weighted normalized value of H corresponding to ith new route for kth criteria

\({v}_k^{,}\) :

kth element of set of anti-ideal solutions

\({v}_k^{\ast }\) :

kth element of set of ideal solutions

w k :

Weight factor for kth criteria

x ik :

Element of H corresponding to ith new route for kth criteria

Z e :

Total number of existing process routes

Z n :

Total number of new process routes

i :

Index of new process route

j :

Index of existing process route

k :

Index of criteria

d :

Demand

References

  • Agrawal V, Shenoy UV (2006) Unified conceptual approach to targeting and design of water and hydrogen networks. AIChE J 52(3):1071–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andiappan V, Foo DCY, Tan RR (2019) Process-to-Policy (P2Pol): using carbon emission pinch analysis (CEPA) tools for policy-making in the energy sector. Clean Technol Environ Policy 21:1383–1388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bojković N, Anić I, Pejčić-Tarle S (2010) One solution for cross-country transport-sustainability evaluation using a modified ELECTRE method. Ecol Econ 69(5):1176–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boral S, Howard I, Chaturvedi SK, McKee K, Naikan VNA (2020) A novel-hybrid multi-criteria group decision-making approach for failure mode and effect analysis: an essential requirement for sustainable manufacturing. Sustain Product Consum 21:14–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvy R, Lepore R, Fortemps P, Weireld G (2020) Comparision of multi-criteria decision-analysis methods for selecting carbon dioxide utilization products. Sustain Product Consum 24:194–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Čuček L, Klemeš JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J Clean Product 34:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui Y, Geng Z, Zhu Q, Han Y (2017) Multi-objective optimization methods and application in energy saving. Energy 125:681–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Benedetto L, Klemeš JJ (2009) The Environmental Performance Strategy Map: an integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-making process. J Clean Product 17(10):900–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foo DC, Tan RR (2016) A review on process integration techniques for carbon emissions and environmental footprint problems. Process Saf Environ Protect 103:291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomilšek R, Čuček L, Homšak M, Tan RR, Kravanja Z (2020) Carbon emissions constrained energy planning for aluminum products. Energies 13(11):2753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 58–191

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jahan A, Mustapha F, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Bahraminasab M (2011) A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Mater Des 32(3):1215–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahanshahloo GR, Lotfi FH, Davoodi AR (2009) Extension of TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data: interval efficiency. Math Comput Model 49:1137–1142

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jain S, Bandyopadhyay S (2017) Resource allocation network for segregated targeting problems with dedicated sources. Ind Eng Chem Res 56(46):13831–13843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia X, Li Z, Wang F, Foo DCY, Tan RR (2016) Multi-dimensional pinch analysis for sustainable power generation sector planning in China. J Clean Product 112:2756–2771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabak M, Dağdeviren M (2014) Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Convers Manag 79:25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalili-Damghani K, Tavana M, Sadi-Nezhad S (2012) An integrated multi-objective framework for solving multi-period project selection problems. Appl Math Comput 219(6):3122–3138

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kim G, Park CS, Yoon KP (1997) Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement. Int J Product Econ 50(1):23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemeš JJ, Varbanov PS, Walmsley TG, Jia X (2018) New directions in the implementation of Pinch Methodology (PM). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 98:439–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna Priya GS, Bandyopadhyay S (2013) Emission constrained power system planning: a pinch analysis-based study of Indian electricity sector. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(5):771–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna Priya GS, Bandyopadhyay S (2017) Multi-objective pinch analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 119:128–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, Bansal RC (2017) A review of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69:596–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo MS, Tzeng GH, Huang WC (2007) Group decision-making based on concepts of ideal and anti-ideal points in a fuzzy environment. Math Comput Model 45(3–4):324–339

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Manan ZA, Nawi WNRM, Alwi SRW, Klemeš JJ (2017) Advances in process integration research for CO2 emission reduction-a review. J Clean Product 167:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masum AKM, Karim AR, Al Abid FB, Islam S, Anas M (2019) A new hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method for ranking human capital indicators by normalized decision matrix. J Comput Sci 15(12):1746–1751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mio A, Limleamthong P, Guillen-Gosalbez G, Fermeglia M (2018) Sustainability evaluation of alternative routes for fine chemicals production in an early stage of process design adopting process simulation along with data envelopment analysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 57(23):7946–7960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mir MA, Ghazvinei PT, Sulaiman NMN, Basri NEA, Saheri S, Mahmood NZ, Jahan A, Begum RA, Aghamohammadi N (2016) Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR improved versions in a multi criteria decision analysis to develop an optimized municipal solid waste management model. J Environ Manag 166:109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omar MN, Fayek AR (2016) A TOPSIS based approach for prioritized aggregation in multi-criteria-decision making problems. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 23(5–6):197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ooi REH, Foo DCY, Tan RR, Ng DKS, Smith R (2013) Carbon constrained energy planning (CEPA) for sustainable power generation sector with automated targeting model. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(29):9889–9896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Patole M, Bandyopadhyay S, Foo DCY, Tan RR (2017) Energy sector planning using multiple-index pinch analysis. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:1967–1975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning- a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8:365–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren J (2018) Multi-criteria decision making for the prioritization of energy systems under uncertainties after life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain Product Consum 16:45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roostaee R, Izadikhah M, Lotfi FH (2012) An interactive procedure to solve multi-objective decision-making problem: an improvement to STEM method. J Appl Math 2012:1–18

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • San Cristóbal JS (2011) Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of renewable energy project in Spain: the VIKOR method. Renew Energy 36(2):498–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenoy UV, Bandyopadhyay S (2007) Targeting of multiple resources. Ind Eng Chem Res 46(11):3698–3708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenoy UV (2010) Targeting and design of energy allocation networks for carbon emission reduction. Chem Eng Sci 65(23):6155–6168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih HS, Shyur HJ, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model 45(7–8):801–813

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shukla A, Agarwal P, Rana RS, Purohit R (2017) Applications of TOPSIS algorithm on various manufacturing process: a review. Mater Today Proc 4(4):5320–5329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh RP, Nachtnebel HP (2016) Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) application for reinforcement of hydropower strategy in Nepal. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 55:43–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha RK, Chaturvedi ND (2018) A graphical dual objective approach for minimizing energy consumption and carbon emission in production planning. J Clean Product 171:312–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha RK, Chaturvedi ND (2019) A review of carbon emission reduction in industries and planning emission limits. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 114:109304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan RR, Abdul Aziz MK, Ng DKS, Foo DCY, Lam HL (2016) Pinch analysis-based approach to industrial safety risk and environmental management. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:2107–2117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan RR, Bandyopadhyay S, Foo DCY (2018) Graphical pinch analysis for planning biochar-based carbon management networks. Process Integr Optim Sustain 2:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan RR, Foo DCY (2007) Pinch analysis approach to carbon-constrained energy sector planning. Energy 32:1422–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan RR, Ng DKS, Foo DCY (2009) Pinch analysis approach to carbon-constrained planning for sustainable power generation. J Clean Product 17(10):940–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang T, Tao Y, Li Y (2020) TOPSIS evaluation system of logistics transportation based on an ordered representation of the polygonal fuzzy set. Int J Fuzzy Syst 22:1565–1581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YP, Smith R (1994) Wastewater Minimization. Chem Eng Sci 49(7):981–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang C, Wu Q (2008) Decision model for product design based on fuzzy TOPSIS method. International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design 342–345

  • Zhang N, Wei G (2013) Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem based on hesitant fuzzy set. Appl Math Model 37(7):4938–4947

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The financial support was from the Department of Science and Technology-Science and Engineering Research Board, India (DST-SERB, India), under the Grant no. ECR/2018/000197.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, Bihta, Patna, 801106, Bihar, India

    Rakesh Kumar Sinha & Nitin Dutt Chaturvedi

Authors
  1. Rakesh Kumar Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nitin Dutt Chaturvedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Sinha, R.K., Chaturvedi, N.D. Multi-criteria Decision-making in Carbon-Constrained Scenario for Sustainable Production Planning. Process Integr Optim Sustain 5, 905–917 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-021-00187-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-021-00187-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation