Selecting the Most Efficient Maintenanceapproach Using AHP Multiple Criteria Decision Making at Haditha Hydropower Plant

• Autorzy: Abdulmuttalib Muhsen , Grzegorz Szymański , Tahseen Mankhi , Bashar Attiya

Warianty tytułu

Wybór najbardziej efektywnej strategii utrzymania w elektrowni wodnej Haditha z wykorzystaniem wielokryterialnej metody wspomagania decyzji AHP

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Hydropower plants are crucial to society. Maintenance becomes vital for the prevention of unforeseen stoppages and a complete breakdown of the machine in a hydropower plant. The deterioration of these assets and the optimal allocation of a limited budget for their maintenance correspond to crucial challenges for hydropower plant utility managers. Decision makers should be assisted with optimal solutions to select the best maintenance. We assess the most popular maintenance approaches, utilizing the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) evaluation methodology. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), an effective method that can solve a multiple criteria decision making problem, was applied to the problem of hydropower plants' maintenance to gain a scientific and objective view on maintenance scheduling. (original abstract)

Elektrownie wodne mają kluczowe znaczenie dla społeczeństwa. Konserwacja staje się niezbędna w zapobieganiu nieprzewidzianym przestojom i całkowitemu uszkodzeniu maszyn w elektrowni wodnej. Pogorszenie stanu tych zasobów i optymalna alokacja ograniczonego budżetu na ich utrzymanie odpowiadają najważniejszym wyzwaniom dla zarządców zakładów energetyki wodnej. Decydenci powinni być wspierani optymalnymi rozwiązaniami, aby wybrać najlepszą strategię obsługi. W artykule opisano najbardziej popularne metody konserwacji, a następnie dokonano ich oceny wykorzystując wielokryterialną metodę wspomagania decyzji (MCDM). Analityczny proces hierarchiczny (AHP), to skuteczna metoda, która może rozwiązać problem podejmowania decyzji, na którą ma wpływ wiele składowych. Zaproponowano wprowadzenie tej metody do wyboru sposobu obsługi elektrowni wodnych w celu uzyskania naukowego i obiektywnego harmonogramu konserwacji.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Multicriteria analysis; Decision making; Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

PL

Analiza wielokryterialna; Podejmowanie decyzji; Analityczny proces hierarchiczny

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Poznańskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie
• Rocznik: 2018
• Numer: nr 78
• Strony: 113--136

Twórcy

autor

Abdulmuttalib Muhsen

• Poznan University of Technology

autor

Grzegorz Szymański

• Poznan University of Technology

autor

Tahseen Mankhi

• Poznan University of Technology

autor

Bashar Attiya

• Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

Bibliografia

• Arifin, A.Z. (2011). The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method for stocks rank. In Proc. Cambrige Business & Economics Conference, 1-26.
• Belton, V., Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Beria, P., Maltese, I., Mariotti, I. (2012). Multicriteria versus Cost Benefit Analysis: a com-parative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. European Transport Re-search Review, 4(3), 137-152.
• Bhushan, N., Rai, K. (2007). Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Borris, S. (2006). Total productive maintenance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Boulding, W., Moore, M.C., Staelin, R., Corfman, K.P., Dickson, P.R., Fitzsimons, G., Weitz, B.A. (1994). Understanding managers' strategic decision-making process. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 413-426.
• Cheng, J.H., Lee, C.M., Tang, C.H. (2009). An application of fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy AHP on evaluating wafer supplier in semiconductor industry. WSEAS Transactions on Infor-mation Science and Applications, 6(5), 756-767.
• Dezert, J., Tacnet, J.M., Batton-Hubert, M., Smarandache, F. (2010). Multi-criteria deci-sion making based on DSmT-AHP. In BELIEF 2010: Workshop on the Theory of Belief Functions. Belief Functions and Applications Society (BFAS), 8-p.
• Dulmin, R., Mininno, V. (2003). Supplier selection using a multi-criteria decision aid method. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(4), 177-187.
• Eti, M.C., Ogaji, S.O.T., Probert, S.D. (2007). Integrating reliability, availability, maintain-ability and supportability with risk analysis for improved operation of the Afam thermal power-station. Applied Energy, 84(2), 202-221.
• Gulati, R., Smith, R. (2009). Maintenance and reliability best practices. Industrial Press.
• Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E. (2000). Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving deci-sion problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 115(1), 67-82.
• Ishizaka, A., Labib, A. (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations. Or Insight, 22(4), 201-220.
• Lai, L.L. (2003). Power utility deregulation - what is its future? Sixth International Confer-ence on Advances in Power System Control. Operation and Management ASDCOM 2003 (Conf. Publ. No. 497), 2003, DOI: 10.1049/cp:20030556, 7-19.
• Lenahan, T. (2006). Turnaround, shutdown and outage management: Effective planning and step-by-step execution of planned maintenance operations. Elsevier.
• Majumder, M. (2015). Multi criteria decision making. In Impact of urbanization on water shortage in face of climatic aberrations. Springer Singapore, 35-47.
• Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7), 703-726.
• Mobley, R.K. (2002). An introduction to predictive maintenance. Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Petkov, D., Petkova, O., Andrew, T., Nepal, T. (2007). Mixing multiple criteria decision making with soft systems thinking techniques for decision support in complex situa-tions. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1615-1629.
• Revoledu, http://www.people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/index.html.
• Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
• Schinas, O.D. (2005). Application of multi criteria decision making techniques in finance: the case of the Greek coastal shipping companies (Doctor-al dissertation, Doctoral Dis-sertation, Division of Ship Design and Maritime Transport, School of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, National Technical University of Athens).
• Scribd, http://www.s.scribd.com/doc/2908406/Modul-6-Analytic-Hierarchy-Process/21 June 2009.
• Shahriar, K., Bakhtavar, E., Saeedi, G., Akbarpour, S. (2007). A new numerical method and AHP for mining method selection. In Proc. 4th Int. Symp, on 'High performance mine production'. Aachen, Germany, May, International Mining Symposia, 289-306.
• Taylor III, Bernard W. (2002). Management Science (seven edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
• Vandagriff, R. (2001). Practical guide to industrial boiler systems. CRC Press.
• Woo, H.H., Lu, S.C. (1981). Worldwide assessment of steam-generator problems in pres-surized-water-reactor nuclear power plants (No. UCRL-53032). Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (USA).
• Xi, X., Qin, Q. (2013). Product quality evaluation system based on AHP fuzzy comprehen-sive evaluation. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 6(1), 356.
• Zionts, S. (2012). Multiple criteria decision making. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Application: Proceedings of the Third Conference Hagen/Königswinter, West Germany, August 20-24, 1979, 177, Springer Science & Business Media, 150

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.21008/j.0239-9415.2018.078.09