# A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Review

#### 2.1. Review of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods

#### 2.2. Review of the Stochastic Expansion of Deterministic MCDM

## 3. Methodology

#### 3.1. An Overview of Selected MCDM Methods

#### 3.1.1. Weighted Sum Method (WSM) and Weighted Product Method (WPM)

#### 3.1.2. TOPSIS

#### 3.1.3. AHP

#### 3.1.4. Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Realité (ELECTRE)

#### 3.1.5. Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE)

#### 3.2. Stochastic Expansion of Deterministic MCDM

_{i}probability that option X

_{i}will rank first. Figure 4. Stochastic expansion algorithm of deterministic MCDM methods illustrates the sequence of steps followed.

## 4. Case Study

#### Decision Criteria and Alternatives

- The compliance/maximum displacement of the rotor is considered to be a negative variable, and it represents the maximum displacement likely to be expected at the hub of the rotor that is affected by the support structure. It is treated in a different way for the floating and fixed structures; however, it does affect the rotor similarly for both structures.
- Dynamic performance is a positive variable, and it defines qualitatively the performance of a support structure in combination with the environmental effects and the operating loads. It is treated in a different way for the floating and fixed structures; the former has to combine the coupled effect of waves and turbine loads.
- Design redundancy is a positive variable, and it defines the capability to redistribute the load when a local failure is encountered.
- The cost of maintenance is a negative variable, and it reflects the qualitative assessment of the possible maintenance costs when, for example, any necessary equipment is involved or weather issues occur.
- The cost of installation is a negative variable, and it represents the qualitative assessment of the possible installation costs along with procedures, such as piling, etc.
- Environmental impact is a negative variable regarding the installation, operation and decommissioning impact of the foundation. Impacts on the natural environment can be considered as noise, visual, shadowing effects, disruption of the fish population’s routes, etc.
- Carbon footprint is a negative variable that takes into account the CO
_{2}emissions that were produced during all of the procedures needed for the support structure, such as the fabrication and installation processes. - Certification is a positive variable and reflects the confidence level against a range of engineering uncertainties. This covers a number of cases from existing installations related to the current application, to different applications or no applications at all.
- The likely cost is a negative variable. It represents the relative qualitative assessment of each of the concept’s costs, which, to some extent, could be quantified through the Net Present Value (NPV).
- Depth compatibility is a positive variable and represents the confidence levels when deploying a concept, which considers current installations for any applications with respect to a reference depth.

## 5. Results and Discussion

#### 5.1. Deterministic Results

- WSM: This has been the simplest method applied, and the result for the optimal solution is Alternative A3, the monopile design, followed by A1 (jacket) as the second option.
- WPM: WPM generates a matrix with pairwise comparison performance, as shown in Table 6. Hence, in this case, A1 (jacket) is superior to all of the other alternatives, because the ratio is higher than one in all cases. Following this, the monopile stands as the second best option.
- TOPSIS: According to this method, again, the jacket (A1) design achieves the highest score followed by the monopile concept.
- AHP: This method ranks the monopile (A3) design highest, followed by the jacket. The final ranking seems to be closer to the rest of the methods, and this can be explained due to the similarity of this method to the WSM.
- PROMETHEE I: Two different types of criteria were employed for the PROMETHEE I method. First, the Type I preference function was applied, and the monopile (A3) was found to be the best alternative in this case. Second, the results from the Type V preference function indicate that the jacket design achieves the highest score (A1).
- ELECTRE I: As a result, this method generates two matrices, which cumulatively qualify the tripod (A2) as the best option followed by the monopile and jacket.

#### 5.2. Stochastic Results

## 6. Conclusions

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Dadda, A.; Ouhbi, I. A decision support system for renewable energy plant projects. In Proceedings of the 2014 Fifth International Conference on Next Generation Networks and Services (NGNS), Casabalanca, Morocco, 28–30 May 2014.
- Triantaphyllou, E.; Mann, S.H. Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: Some challenges. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Appl. Pract.
**1995**, 2, 35–44. [Google Scholar] - Mateo, J.R.S.C. Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry; Springer-Verlag: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, M.; Bruen, M.; Maystre, L.-Y. ELECTRE and Decision Support, Methods and Applications in Engineering and Infrastructure Investment; Springer Science+Business Media, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Triantaphyllou, E.; Shu, S.; Sanchez, S.N.; Ray, T. Multi-criteria decision making: An operations research approach. Encycl. Electr. Electron. Eng.
**1998**, 15, 175–186. [Google Scholar] - Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1996; Volume 4922. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Mitra, G., Greenberg, H.J., Lootsma, F.A., Rijkaert, M.J., Zimmermann, H.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar]
- Kabak, M.; Dağdeviren, M. Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodolog. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2014**, 79, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kahraman, C.; Kaya, İ. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Exp. Syst. Appl.
**2010**, 37, 6270–6281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Cavallaro, F.; Khalifah, Z. Sustainable and renewable energy: An overview of the application of multiple criteria decision making techniques and approaches. Sustainability
**2015**, 7, 13947–13984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peng, J.-J.; Wang, J.Q.; Wang, J.; Yang, L.J.; Chen, X.H. An extension of ELECTRE to multi-criteria decision-making problems with multi-hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci.
**2015**, 307, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kolios, A.; Read, G.; Ioannou, A. Application of multi-criteria decision-making to risk prioritisation in tidal energy developments. Int. J. Sustain. Energy
**2016**, 35, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shafiee, M.; Kolios, A.J. A multi-criteria decision model to mitigate the operational risks of offshore wind infrastructures. In Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2014, Wroclaw, Poland, 14–18 September 2014; CRC Press/Balkema: Wroclaw, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod.
**2013**, 98, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mourmouris, J.C.; Potolias, C. A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: A case study thassos, greece. Energy Policy
**2013**, 52, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kolios, A.J.; Rodriguez-Tsouroukdissian, A.; Salonitis, K. Multi-criteria decision analysis of offshore wind turbines support structures under stochastic inputs. Ships Offshore Struct.
**2016**, 11, 38–49. [Google Scholar] - Lozano-Minguez, E.; Kolios, A.J.; Brennan, F.P. Multi-criteria assessment of offshore wind turbine support structures. Renew. Energy
**2011**, 36, 2831–2837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Pilavachi, P.; Roumpeas, C.P.; Minett, S.; Afgan, N.H. Multi-criteria evaluation for CHP system options. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2006**, 47, 3519–3529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kolios, A.; Read, G. A political, economic, social, technology, legal and environmental (PESTLE) Approach for risk identification of the tidal industry in the United Kingdom. Energies
**2013**, 6, 5023–5045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Martin, H.; Spano, G.; Küster, J.F.; Collu, M.; Kollios, A.J. Application and extension of the TOPSIS method for the assessment of floating offshore wind turbine support structures. Ships Offshore Struct.
**2013**, 8, 477–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Doukas, H.; Karakosta, C.; Psarras, J. Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Exp. Syst. Appl.
**2010**, 37, 5491–5497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Datta, A.; Saha, D.; Ray, A.; Das, P. Anti-islanding selection for grid-connected solar photovoltaic system applications: A MCDM based distance approach. Solar Energy
**2014**, 110, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saelee, S.; Paweewan, B.; Tongpool, R.; Witoon, T.; Takada, J.; Manusboonpurmpool, K. Biomass type selection for boilers using TOPSIS multi-criteria model. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev.
**2014**, 5, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Behzadian, M.; Otaghsara, S.K.; Yazdani, M.; Ignatius, J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Exp. Syst. Appl.
**2012**, 39, 13051–13069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cobuloglu, H.I.; Büyüktahtakın, İ.E. A stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable biomass crop selection. Exp. Syst. Appl.
**2015**, 42, 6065–6074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohsen, M.S.; Akash, B.A. Evaluation of domestic solar water heating system in jordan using analytic hierarchy process. Energy Convers. Manag.
**1997**, 38, 1815–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nigim, K.; Munier, N.; Green, J. Pre-feasibility MCDM Tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. Renew. Energy
**2004**, 29, 1775–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saaty, R.W. Decision Making in Complex Environments: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Decision Making and the Analytic Network Process (ANP) for Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback; Super Decisions: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Fetanat, A.; Khorasaninejad, E. A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore wind farm site selection: A case study of Iran. Ocean Coast. Manag.
**2015**, 109, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Papadopoulos, A.; Karagiannidis, A. Application of the multi-criteria analysis method electre III for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems. Omega
**2008**, 36, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Govindan, K.; Jepsen, M.B. ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2016**, 250, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Georgopoulou, E.; Sarafidis, Y.; Diakoulaki, D. Design and implementation of a group dss for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1998**, 109, 483–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Georgiou, D.; Mohammed, E.S.; Rozakis, S. Multi-criteria decision making on the energy supply configuration of autonomous desalination units. Renew. Energy
**2015**, 75, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Goumas, M.; Lygerou, V. An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2000**, 123, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Madlener, R.; Kowalski, K.; Stagl, S. New ways for the integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: the case of renewable energy use in Austria. Energy Policy
**2007**, 35, 6060–6074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tsoutsos, T.; Drandaki, M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Iosifidis, E.; Kiosses, I. Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of crete. Energy Policy
**2009**, 37, 1587–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R.B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2010**, 200, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Branke, J.; Deb, K.; Miettinen, K.; Slowiński, R. Multiobjective Optimization: Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches; Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 5252. [Google Scholar]
- Adinolfi, G.; Graditi, G.; Siano, P.; Piccolo, A. Multiobjective optimal design of photovoltaic synchronous boost converters assessing efficiency, reliability, and cost savings. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform.
**2015**, 11, 1038–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Graditi, G.; Adinolfi, G.; Tina, G.M. Photovoltaic optimizer boost converters: Temperature influence and electro-thermal design. Appl. Energy
**2014**, 115, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kantas, A.B.; Cobuloglu, H.I.; Büyüktahtakιn, İ.E. Multi-source capacitated lot-sizing for economically viable and clean biofuel production. J. Clean. Prod.
**2015**, 94, 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cobuloglu, H.I.; Büyüktahtakın, İ.E. Food vs. biofuel: An optimization approach to the spatio-temporal analysis of land-use competition and environmental impacts. Appl. Energy
**2015**, 140, 418–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ippolito, M.G.; Di Silvestre, M.L.; Sanseverino, E.R.; Zizzo, G. Multi-objective optimized management of electrical energy storage systems in an islanded network with renewable energy sources under different design scenarios. Energy
**2014**, 64, 648–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mirjafari, M.; Balog, R.S. Multi-objective optimization of the energy capture and boost inductor mass in a module-integrated converter (mic) photovoltaic energy system. In Proceedings of the 2012 Twenty-Seventh Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Orlando, FL, USA, 5–9 February 2012.
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Kildienė, S. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ.
**2014**, 20, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications—Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Exp. Syst. Appl.
**2015**, 42, 4126–4148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M.D.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž.
**2015**, 28, 516–571. [Google Scholar] - Ren, J.; Fedele, A.; Mason, M.; Manzardo, A.; Scipioni, A. Fuzzy multi-actor multi-criteria decision making for sustainability assessment of biomass-based technologies for hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
**2013**, 38, 9111–9120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kaya, T.; Kahraman, C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of istanbul. Energy
**2010**, 35, 2517–2527. [Google Scholar] - Şengül, Ü.; Eren, M.; Shiraz, S.E.; Gezder, V.; Şengül, A.B. Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renew. Energy
**2015**, 75, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lee, A.H.I.; Hung, M.-C.; Kang, H.-Y.; Pearn, W.L. A wind turbine evaluation model under a multi-criteria decision making environment. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2012**, 64, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shafiee, M. A fuzzy analytic network process model to mitigate the risks associated with offshore wind farms. Exp. Syst. Appl.
**2015**, 42, 2143–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Perera, A.T.D.; Attalage, R.A.; Perera, K.K.C.K.; Dassanayake, V.P.C. A hybrid tool to combine multi-objective optimization and multi-criterion decision making in designing standalone hybrid energy systems. Appl. Energy
**2013**, 107, 412–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xiong, W.; Qi, H. A extended TOPSIS method for the stochastic multi-criteria decision making problem through interval estimation. In Proceedings of the 2010 2nd International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications (ISA), Wuhan, China, 22–23 May 2010.
- Zarghami, M.; Szidarovszky, F.; Ardakanian, R. A fuzzy-stochastic OWA model for robust multi-criteria decision making. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak.
**2008**, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taylor, H.M.; Karlin, S. An Introduction to Stochastic Modeling, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, C.-L.; Yoon, K.P. Multiple Attribute Decision Making, 1981; Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, K.P.; Hwang, C.-L. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; Volume 104. [Google Scholar]
- Zeleny, M. Multiple Criteria Decision Making; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, X.; Hu, Y.; Deng, Y. Supplier selection using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Exp. Syst. Appl.
**2014**, 41, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roy, B. The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theroy Decis.
**1991**, 31, 49–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buchanan, J.; Sheppard, P.; Vanderpoorten, D. Ranking projects using the ELECTRE method. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference Operational Research Society of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 August–1 September 1998.
- Milani, A.S.; Shanian, A.; El-Lahham, C. Using different ELECTRE methods in strategic planning in the presence of human behavioral resistance. Adv. Decis. Sci.
**2006**, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Botti, L.; Peypoch, N. Multi-criteria ELECTRE method and destination competitiveness. Tour. Manag. Perspect.
**2013**, 6, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brans, J.; Vincke, P. A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making. Manag. Sci.
**1985**, 31, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tzeng, G.-H.; Huang, J.-J. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Mareschal, B. The PROMETHEE-GAIA FAQ. 2013. Available online: http://www.promethee-gaia.net/faq-pro/index.php?action=article&cat_id=003002&id=4 (accessed on 7 July 2016).
- Pearl, J. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference; Morgan Kaufmann: San Fransisco, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Suganthi, L.; Iniyan, S.; Samuel, A.A. Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy systems—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2015**, 48, 585–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kroese, D.P.; Taimre, T.; Botev, Z.I. Handbook of Monte Carlo Methods; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bhattacharya, S.; Nikitas, N.; Garnsey, J.; Alexander, N.A.; Cox, J.; Lombardi, D.; Wood, D.M.; Nash, D.F.T. Observed dynamic soil–structure interaction in scale testing of offshore wind turbine foundations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
**2013**, 54, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arapogianni, A.; Genachte, A.-B. The members of the European Wind Energy Association’s (EWEA) Offshore Wind Industry Group (OWIG). In Deep Water, The Next Step for Offshore Wind Energy; EWEA: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- European Wind Energy Association. Offshore Statistics. 2016. Available online: http://www.ewea.org/statistics/offshore-statistics/ (accessed on 7 July 2016).
- Collu, M.; Kolios, A.J.; Chahardehi, A.; Brennan, F. A Comparison Between the Preliminary Design Studies of a Fixed and a Floating Support Structure for a 5 MW Offshore Wind Turbine in the North Sea; Marine Renewable and Offshore Wind Energy–Papers 2010; RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects: London, UK, 2010; pp. 63–74. [Google Scholar]
- Borg, M.; Collu, M.; Kolios, A. Offshore floating vertical axis wind turbines, dynamics modelling state of the art. part ii: mooring line and structural dynamics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2014**, 39, 1226–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kolios, A.; Collu, M.; Chahardehi, A.; Brennan, F.; Patel, M.H. A multi-criteria decision making method to compare support structures for offshore wind turbines. In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Warsaw, Poland, 20–23 April 2010.
- DNV-OS-J101, Offshore Standard. Design of offshore wind turbine structures. DET NORSKE VERITAS AS, May 2014. Available online: http://www.germanlloyd.org/pdf/DNV-OS-J101_2014-05.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2016).
- Yi, J.H.; Kim, S.-B.; Yoon, G.-L.; Andersen, L.V. Natural frequency of bottom-fixed offshore wind turbines considering pile-soil-interaction with material uncertainties and scouring depth. Wind Struct. Int. J.
**2015**, 21, 625–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Natarajan, A. An overview of the state of the art technologies for Multi-MW scale offshore wind turbines and beyond. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ.
**2014**, 3, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arany, L.; Bhattacharya, S.; Macdonald, J.H.G.; Hogan, J. Closed form solution of eigen frequency of monopile supported offshore wind turbines in deeper waters incorporating stiffness of substructure and SSI. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
**2016**, 83, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kittur, J.; Vijaykumar, S.; Bellubbi, V.P.; Vishal, P. Comparison of different MCDM techniques used to evaluate optimal generation. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Applied and Theoretical Computing and Communication Technology, iCATccT 2015, Davangere, India, 29–31 October 2015.
- Mobinizadeh, M.; Raeissi, P.; Nasiripour, A.A.; Olyaeemanesh, A.; Tabibi, S.J. A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: The experience of ahp-topsis combination approach. DARU J. Pharmaceutical Sci.
**2016**, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mulliner, E.; Malys, N.; Maliene, V. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega (UK)
**2016**, 59, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

$n$ | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

$RI$ | 0 | 0.58 | 0.9 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 |

ID | Decision Criterion |
---|---|

A | Compliance/Max Displacement of Rotor |

B | Dynamic Performance |

C | Design Redundancy |

D | Cost of Maintenance |

E | Cost of Installation |

F | Environmental Impact |

G | Carbon Footprint |

H | Certification |

I | Likely Cost |

J | Depth Compatibility |

ID | Decision Alternative |
---|---|

A1 | Jacket |

A2 | Tripod |

A3 | Monopile |

A4 | Suction Bucket |

A5 | Jack-up |

A6 | Spar |

A7 | Barge |

A8 | TLP |

A9 | Semi-Submersible |

A10 | Tri-floater |

Alternatives/Criteria | Compliance/Max Displacement of Rotor | Dynamic Performance | Design Redundancy | Cost of Maintenance | Cost of Installation | Environmental Impact | Carbon Footprint | Certification | Likely Cost | Depth Compatibility |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Jacket | 1.6 | 7.7 | 7.8 | 5.9 | 6.6 | 7.4 | 6.6 | 7.7 | 5.7 | 7.7 |

Tripod | 2 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 6.9 | 6.2 | 7.2 | 5.3 | 7 |

Monopile | 2.7 | 6.5 | 5.7 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 6.5 | 5.2 | 7.8 | 4.4 | 6.1 |

Suction Bucket | 3.3 | 6.1 | 5 | 5 | 5.3 | 6.5 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 4.5 | 5.3 |

Jack-up | 3.2 | 6.6 | 6.1 | 5.4 | 4.6 | 5 | 5.9 | 6.8 | 7 | 6.4 |

Spar | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.1 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 6.5 | 3.9 |

Barge | 6.6 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 4.6 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.9 | 5.6 |

TLP | 4.2 | 6.6 | 4.4 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.2 | 6 | 5.5 | 7.3 | 5 |

Semi-Submersible | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.3 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 3.7 | 5.9 | 5.6 | 6.7 | 5.9 |

Tri-floater | 5.5 | 5.7 | 4.9 | 5 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 5.7 | 4.3 | 6.4 | 5.7 |

Normalised weight values | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.10 |

Alternatives | WSM | WPM | TOPSIS | AHP | PROMETHEE I Type I | PROMETHEE I Type V | ELECTRE I | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Score | Rank | Rank | Score | Rank | Score | Rank | Score | Rank | Score | Rank | Rank | |

A1 | −0.68968 | 2 | 1 | 0.6278 | 1 | −0.0191 | 2 | 0.0956 | 4 | 0.225556 | 1 | 3 |

A2 | −0.84274 | 3 | 3 | 0.6222 | 3 | −0.0218 | 3 | 0.1071 | 2 | 0.11 | 3 | 1 |

A3 | −0.67306 | 1 | 2 | 0.6237 | 2 | −0.019 | 1 | 0.3758 | 1 | 0.153333 | 2 | 2 |

A4 | −1.0571 | 5 | 5 | 0.5423 | 5 | −0.0258 | 5 | 0.0336 | 6 | 0.046667 | 5 | 4 |

A5 | −0.93839 | 4 | 4 | 0.5899 | 4 | −0.0233 | 4 | 0.1023 | 3 | 0.088889 | 4 | 5 |

A6 | −1.485 | 9 | 9 | 0.3662 | 10 | −0.0344 | 9 | −0.2051 | 9 | −0.17889 | 9 | 9 |

A7 | −1.27484 | 7 | 7 | 0.4108 | 8 | −0.0309 | 7 | 0.059 | 5 | −0.10111 | 8 | 7 |

A8 | −1.6779 | 10 | 10 | 0.3815 | 9 | −0.0372 | 10 | −0.4568 | 10 | −0.18111 | 10 | 6 |

A9 | −1.21339 | 6 | 6 | 0.4347 | 6 | −0.0293 | 6 | 0.0123 | 7 | −0.08 | 6 | 10 |

A10 | −1.33065 | 8 | 8 | 0.429 | 7 | −0.0312 | 8 | −0.1238 | 8 | −0.08333 | 7 | 8 |

A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | A8 | A9 | A10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

A1 | 1 | 1.0361 | 1.0188 | 1.0975 | 1.0750 | 1.1993 | 1.1391 | 1.2405 | 1.2405 | 1.1311 |

A2 | 0.9651 | 1 | 0.9833 | 1.0592 | 1.0375 | 1.1575 | 1.0994 | 1.1972 | 1.0916 | 1.1168 |

A3 | 0.9814 | 1.0169 | 1 | 1.0772 | 1.0551 | 1.1771 | 1.1180 | 1.2176 | 1.1101 | 1.1358 |

A4 | 0.9110 | 0.9440 | 0.9282 | 1 | 0.9794 | 1.0927 | 1.0378 | 1.1302 | 1.0305 | 1.0543 |

A5 | 0.9301 | 0.9638 | 0.9477 | 1.0209 | 1 | 1.1156 | 1.0596 | 1.1539 | 1.0521 | 1.0764 |

A6 | 0.8337 | 0.8639 | 0.8495 | 0.9151 | 0.8963 | 1 | 0.9498 | 1.0343 | 0.9431 | 0.9648 |

A7 | 0.8778 | 0.9095 | 0.8944 | 0.9635 | 0.9437 | 1.0528 | 1 | 1.0890 | 0.9929 | 1.0158 |

A8 | 0.8060 | 0.8352 | 0.8212 | 0.8847 | 0.8665 | 0.9667 | 0.9182 | 1 | 0.9117 | 0.9328 |

A9 | 0.8840 | 0.9160 | 0.9007 | 0.9703 | 0.9504 | 1.0603 | 1.0070 | 1.0967 | 1 | 1.0230 |

A10 | 0.8641 | 0.8953 | 0.8804 | 0.9484 | 0.9289 | 1.0363 | 0.9843 | 1.0720 | 0.9774 | 1 |

Alternatives | WSM | WPM | TOPSIS | AHP | PROMETHEE TYPE V | PROMETHEE I TYPE I | ELECTRE I |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

A1 | 21.64% | 21.94% | 18.12% | 21.62% | 47.75% | 22.09% | 27.33% |

A2 | 14.39% | 14.34% | 14.40% | 14.40% | 17.26% | 15.27% | 15.80% |

A3 | 25.62% | 23.59% | 24.09% | 25.16% | 6.07% | 23.07% | 6.24% |

A4 | 11.30% | 12.19% | 12.84% | 11.43% | 2.67% | 9.81% | 3.55% |

A5 | 10.35% | 8.73% | 11.58% | 11.13% | 9.62% | 10.41% | 14.59% |

A6 | 3.37% | 4.29% | 3.73% | 3.31% | 2.75% | 3.80% | 4.96% |

A7 | 4.65% | 6.04% | 5.11% | 4.28% | 1.09% | 5.65% | 3.01% |

A8 | 1.24% | 1.64% | 2.14% | 1.60% | 8.92% | 1.13% | 12.84% |

A9 | 4.83% | 4.27% | 4.88% | 4.57% | 2.94% | 5.56% | 7.90% |

A10 | 2.60% | 2.97% | 3.11% | 2.50% | 0.93% | 3.20% | 3.79% |

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Kolios, A.; Mytilinou, V.; Lozano-Minguez, E.; Salonitis, K.
A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs. *Energies* **2016**, *9*, 566.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en9070566

**AMA Style**

Kolios A, Mytilinou V, Lozano-Minguez E, Salonitis K.
A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs. *Energies*. 2016; 9(7):566.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en9070566

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Kolios, Athanasios, Varvara Mytilinou, Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez, and Konstantinos Salonitis.
2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs" *Energies* 9, no. 7: 566.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en9070566