A Comparison of Microcomputer Implemented Interactive Molp Methods Based on a Case Study
In this study we discuss some results and draw some conclusions from a comparative analysis of the application of three interactive multiobjective linear programming (MOLP) methods to an outline study of the expansion policy for a power generation system. The selection of a power generation expansion plan has been modelled as a tricriteria linear programming problem, where the three objective functions quantify the total system cost, the risk of supply failure and the environmental impact.
The Zionts-Wallenius and STEM interactive MOLP methods are revisited and compared with the TRIMAP method for an electric power system expansion planning case study. The TRIMAP method combines the weighting space decomposition, the introduction of constraints on the objective functions space and on the weighting space. Furthermore, the introduction of constraints on the objective functions values can be translated into the weighting space.
In our computer implementation of these methods special attention is paid to the user interface (a key issue to the successful application of the interactive algorithms). All the programs are implemented on Macintosh II (sharing the same data files), trying to make the most of the computer’s user-friendly environment through the use of windows for displaying the graphics, pull-down menus for choosing the available actions and dialogue boxes for exchanging information with the user in order to facilitate the decision maker (DM) tasks.
The methods are briefly described in section 1. The case study is summarised in section 2. In section 3 some results of the application of the methods are presented. The conclusions based on a comparative analysis of the results are drawn in section 4.
KeywordsObjective Function Decision Maker Pareto Optimal Solution Weighting Space Total System Cost
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Clímaco, J. and Almeida, A. (1981), “Multiobjective power systems generation planning”, Proc. of the Third International Conference on Energy Use Management, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Clímaco, J. and Antunes, C.H. (1987), “TRIMAP — An interactive tricriteria linear programming package”, Foundations of Control Engineering, vol. 12, 3, 101–119.Google Scholar
- Clímaco, J., Antunes, C.H., Martins, A., Sá Marta, J. and Almeida, A. (1988), “A novel approach to power generation expansion planning using TRIMAP”, paper presented at the VIII International Conference on MCDM, Manchester.Google Scholar
- Clímaco, J. and Antunes, C.H. (1989), “Implementation of a user friendly software package — a guided tour of TRIMAP”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol.12, 10/11, 1299–1309.Google Scholar
- Roy, B. (1985), “Meaning and Validity of Interactive Procedures as Tools for Decision Making”, Cahier du Lamsade n° 62, Université de Paris-Dauphine.Google Scholar
- Steuer, R.E. (1986), Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Application, Wiley.Google Scholar
- Vincke, Ph. (1982), “Présentation et Analyse de Neuf Methodes Multicritéres Interactives”, Cahier du LAMSADE n° 42, Université de Paris-Dauphine.Google Scholar
- Zionts, S. (1989), “Multicriteria mathematical programming: an update overview and several approaches”, in B. Karpak and S. Zionts (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers, NATO ASI Series F, vol.5 6, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar