SELECTION OF OPTIMAL SMALL HYDROPOWER

PROJECT: RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

USING FUZZY-M.C.D.M.
Priyabrata Adhikary

Susmita Kundu

G.M.I.T. (WBUT), Kolkata

M.S.I.T. (WBUT), Kolkata

Pankaj Kr Roy and Asis Mazumdar

S.W.R.E., Jadavpur University, Kolkata
ABSTRACT
Selecting the viable small hydro project and its parameters in which to invest is a critical task involving different
factors as they are unique and site specic. Small hydro projects (SHP) are emerging as solution for sustainable,
eco-friendly, long term and cost-effective water or renewable energy resource for future. Hence such decisionmaking can be viewed as a multi-criteria optimization problem with correlating criteria and alternatives due
to various project related risk and uncertainties. This task should take into consideration several conicting
aspects because of the increasing complexity of the socio-political, technological, environmental and economic
factors. Traditional single criteria decision-making approaches cannot handle the complexity of such systems.
Multi-criteria optimization or MCDA or MCDM methods may provide a better and exible tool. This paper aims
to evaluate applicability of multi-criteria optimization to decision makers during the small hydropower project
planning and development. To the best of the authors knowledge this novel approach for application of fuzzymulti-criteria optimization in viable small hydropower project selection are absent in renewable energy or uid
mechanics literature due to its assessment complexity.
Keywords : Small Hydropower; Renewable Energy; Optimization; Fuzzy TOPSIS; Fuzzy VIKOR;
INTRODUCTION

will have high negative impact on the overall cost and

efciency. Thus it will result in producing less power at
a higher cost-per-watt. Small hydropower projects (i.e.
up to 25 MW in India) are much more advantageous
than conventional medium or large hydropower projects.
Small hydropower plant requires very less ow or head
compared to conventional hydropower plants. Reservoir
is also not required for small hydropower projects as they
are mostly run-of-river type. Environmental and social
impacts of small hydropower projects are also negligible
compared to conventional medium or large hydropower
projects.

The success of a small hydropower project is no longer

dominated by only economic criteria. Several other
criteria, such as environmental, socio-political and
technical aspects need to be taken into consideration.
Some industries, like oil rening, health care and power
generation have (24x7) type continuous schedules almost
from the day they start. Small hydropower projects are
complex, interdisciplinary integrated systems, because
there are large numbers of civil, mechanical and electrical
components with different characteristics. Therefore,
small hydropower project development can be analyzed
as a typical multi-criteria decision analysis or making
(MCDA or MCDM) problem. The cost of clean-greenfriendly small hydroelectricity is relatively low i.e. Rs2.5/
kWh (approx.), compared to others (solar, wind, ocean,
geo thermal etc.)[1] and thus making it a competitive source
of renewable energy. In India, the total installed power
generating capacity during October 2014 was reported as
2,54,649.5 MW out of which only 40,798.8 MW is through
hydro power. The identied small hydro power potential
sites are 19749.4 MW, out of which installed capacity
are 3970.4 MW only till November 2014. Inaccurate
design, improper selection of project or any parameter

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

Small hydropower project developments are classied

as: Run-of-river scheme, Canal-based scheme, Dam-Toe
scheme, Pumped storage scheme and In Stream type.
Run-of-river scheme utilizes the instantaneous river ow
without a dam. A weir or a barrage is constructed across
the river simply to raise the water level slightly and divert
water into a conductor system for power generation. Such
a scheme is adopted in the case of a perennial river. Canal
fall based schemes are planned to generate power by
utilizing the ow and fall in the canal. These schemes may
be planned in the canal itself or in the bypass channel.
These are low head and high discharge schemes. These

Selection of Optimal Small Hydropower Project : Risk and Uncertainty Analysis Using Fuzzy-M.C.D.M.

schemes are advantageous due to low gestation period,

simple layout, no rehabilitation problems and no socioenvironmental problems. In Dam-Toe scheme the head
is created by raising the water level behind the dam by
storing natural ow and the powerhouse is placed at the
toe of the dam or along the axis of the dam on either
side. The water is carried to the powerhouse through
a penstock. Pumped storage scheme is a method of
keeping water in reserve for peak period power demands
by pumping water that has already owed through the
turbines back up a storage pool above the power plant
at a time when customer demand or tariff for energy is
low, such as during the middle of the night. The water is
then allowed to ow back through the turbine-generators
at times when demand is high and a heavy load is placed
on the system. Because pumped storage reservoirs are
relatively small, construction costs are generally low
compared with conventional hydropower facilities. Run
of river schemes are also planned in the river itself by
with or without creating a barrage and are known as Instream schemes.
Again Renovation, Modernization, Up-rating and Life
Extension (RMU&LE) is redesigning, retrotting and
upgrading 7-years or older SHP (up to 25 MW) and some
of their components with the aim of achieving enhanced
safety, reliability, durability and efciency. It is done
before complete replacement of the plant and machines.
The optimization of generation from the existing SHP
capacity is of utmost importance. The installation of
new SHP involves much higher investment and longer
gestation period. In view of the large quantum of nances
required to install additional capacity, the optimization of
generation from the existing SHP generating capacity
through Renovation, Modernization, Up-rating and Life
Extension (RMU&LE) has been considered to be the best
option to achieve additional capacity and generation at a
much lower cost and in a shorter time[6,7]. Renovation (or
Rehabilitation or Refurbishment) aims at extending the
SHP life. Whereas restoration work is done to recover the
damages caused due to natural calamity. The rst step
towards refurbishment is to assess the existing condition
of machine & its various components. For this, a very
detailed study (temperature, vibrations & metallurgy etc.)
needs to be done. The power plant engineers may not
be competent enough to do it alone. This work should be
got done from manufacturers or experts as they know the
latest techniques of stress analysis which can be used to
get actual operating stresses at different heads & output.
However plant engineers should have sufcient knowledge
of the tests to be performed & data to be collected. These
electrical and mechanical studies will indicate the health
and residual life of plant or machines. It would be the
main deciding factor for replacement or refurbishment
of different components of machines. More than 200
old hydropower stations exist in India. RMU&LE of SHP

concerns only old stations (7 Year or older stations).

MNRE (India) gives nancial support for RMU&LE of SHP
stations. Consequences of SHP aging are: lowering of
plant performance, reduced generation, uneconomical
operation, difcult maintenance. Renovation doesnt only
mean replacement or repair of worn out and damaged
parts. It also includes use of new materials, designs and
technologies for improving efciency and reliability of the
power station and enhancing generation. Renovation is
advantageous as it takes lesser time (1-3 yrs) than new
project development (3-5 Yrs). It doesnt require any
statutory clearances or rehabilitation of people involved.
But it extends plant life by only 20-25 years. The governing
factors of Renovation are: project cost, project life,
shutdown time, efciency and project feasibility. Hence
renovation is considered as an opportunity to modernize
or up-rate a plant[7,8]. Modernization aims at enhancing the
plant performance. Cost - benet analysis is essential for
modernization. Benets of modernization are: increased
plant output; improved efciency; higher availability;
higher reliability etc. Briey it includes both replacements
of manual systems with modern accessories and controls
(Gates, Governors, and Relays etc.) as well as addition of
new features (PLC or SCADA etc.) for smooth operation
of the SHP. Up-rating aims at increasing the SHP
capacity. Essential studies need to be carried out for
assessing up-rating feasibility includes: assessment of
existing condition of machine; study general guidelines;
studies on electrical equipments & parts; studies on
mechanical equipments & parts. An up-rating possibility
has to be carefully studied to identify the possibility
of increasing efficiency or capacity of turbines &
generators. Again it has to be carefully studied to
identify the possibility of utilizing increased discharge
or head (if any). It may be achieved by up-rating of
existing machines through technology up-gradation,
unit addition or revising operating margins (1030%).
It may also be achieved by adding new technology or
replacing old equipments or technology with advanced
ones (use of Class F insulation in stator, use of faster
relays or breakers, use of advanced runner blade
material, use of PLC or SCADA etc.). Systematic way
of checking health of every component of the old SHP
is done by Residual Life Assessment and Life Extension
(RLA&LE) studies. This study helps in assessing the
up-rating of the existing facilities of the plants. RLA&LE
studies are helpful in determining which component
of the plant to be retained and which one to be
discarded or replaced. Recently in order to augment
the hydropower generation and improve the availability
of existing hydropower projects, MNRE (GOI) placed
special emphasis on RMU&LE of various existing
old SHP in the country namely: 20.4 MW Pathri SHP
(Hardwar), 9.3 MW Mohammadpur SHP (Hardwar), 3
MW Galogi SHP (Dehradun) etc.

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

IASH Journal

There are two basic components in all four types of SHP

schemes; i.e., civil works (Diversion and intake, De-silting
tank, Power channel, Fore-bay, Penstock, Powerhouse
building, Tail race channel etc.) and electro-mechanical
equipment (Valves; Hydraulic Turbine - Pelton, Francis,
Kaplan, Cross Flow etc.; Generator-Synchronous or
Asynchronous type etc.). The hydraulic turbine-generator
assembly [2,3] is the heart of any small hydropower
project. Pelton, Francis, Kaplan and Cross Flow turbines
are used in high head, medium head, low head and
ultra low head applications respectively. Synchronous
generators are used mostly for mini or isolated grids
whereas asynchronous generators are generally used
when connected to comparatively large grids. Most of the
components are same in different types of schemes; some
components, however, are different. The development of
small hydro projects typically takes from 2 to 5 years to
complete, from conception to nal commissioning[4, 5]. This
time is required to undertake studies and design work,
to receive the necessary approvals and to construct the
project. Once constructed, small hydro plants require little
maintenance over their useful life, which can be well over
35 to 50 years. Small hydropower project development
involves following stages as: Pre-feasibility Study;
Feasibility Analysis; Engineering and Development;
Construction and Commissioning. The small hydropower
plant components are constantly stressed by a number of
factors which affect the life of the individual components
and of the power house. The usefulness of the equipment
can be substantially increased by carrying out the proper
operation by trained manpower and maintenance of the
machine or parts by skilled manpower and by taking such
maintenance steps many faults can be prevented. Small
Hydropower Plant operation can be divided under four
verticals as: Operation Management, Water Management,
Maintenance Management and Personnel Management.
Small Hydropower Plant maintenance ensures: reliable
and uninterrupted power supply; full utilization of existing
plant and machines; reduced O&M cost; reduced outages, breakdown and better efciency; increased
durability. Maintenance of power plant includes daily
check schedules, weekly check schedules, monthly
check schedules, half yearly check schedules, annual
overhauling. Small Hydropower Plant maintenance
is of four types as: Breakdown Maintenance, Routine
Maintenance, Preventative Maintenance and Capital
Maintenance[4,5].
In the nal analysis of any renewable energy research, it
is the energy delivered versus the investment cost which
has to be optimized for a feasible engineering solution.
Inaccurate design or improper selection of any parameter
will have high negative impact on the overall cost and
efciency. Thus it will result in producing less power at
a higher cost-per-watt. Hence multi-criteria optimization

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

plays a crucial role. Project risk is essentially the level of

possibility that an action or activity will lead to a loss or
to an undesired outcome or it may lead to a gain also.
Project uncertainty, on the other hand, is unpredictable.
It has too many unknown variables which do not even
allow one to estimate as to what is going to happen. All
activities carry some risk, but some are inherently more
risky than others. When the outcome of any activity is
unknown, it is uncertain. Thus it is clear then that though
both project risk and uncertainty talk about future losses
or hazards, while risk can be quantied and measured;
there is no known way of ascertaining uncertainty. Risk
is thus closer to probability. The risk and uncertainty of
SHP projects depends on several quantiable and nonquantiable variables. However, in our analysis, we use
only certain variables among them to determine the risk
and uncertainty of the SHP with satisfactory accuracy.
Risks are classied as External Risk (Technological
Risk, Environmental Risk, Economic Risk, and SocioPolitical Risk) and Internal Risk (Local Risk, Global Risk).
Variables like CDM cost, Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) cost etc. do not bring any kind of uncertainty to
the revenue and risk associated with any SHP. These are
the certain variables. Uncertain variables like installation
cost, Electricity Tariff rates etc. not only increase the
uncertainty but also introduce risks of making false future
nancial projections.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Evaluating or making decision on small hydropower
project or any of its parameter is a complex analysis
as they are always unique and site specic. The use of
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or multi-criteria
decision making (MCDM) or multi-criteria analysis (MCA)
or multi-criteria optimization techniques can provide a
reliable methodology to rank alternatives in the presence
of different objectives and limitations. These methods
can be used as empirical validation and testing tools of
various needs. In addition they can be also applied to
group decision making scenario as well as for uncertainty
analysis. A review of various published literatures on
sustainable energy planning indicates greater applicability
of MCDA methods in changed socio-economic scenario.
The methods have been very widely used to take care of
multiple, conicting criteria to arrive at better solutions[6, 7].
Increasing popularity and applicability of these methods
beyond 1990 indicate a paradigm shift in renewable
energy planning, development and policy analysis. More
research is still to be done to explore the applicability and
potentiality of more MCDA methods to real-world planning
and designing problems to reduce the gap between theory
and practice. Many soft-wares (1000 Minds, D-Sight etc.)
have also been developed to facilitate such analysis or
study. This paper on small hydropower project based

Selection of Optimal Small Hydropower Project : Risk and Uncertainty Analysis Using Fuzzy-M.C.D.M.

decision making is an effort in that direction. This work

has been carried out by renewable energy engineers and
not by experts in decision analysis. Accordingly, the main
focus of the work has been on the applicability of various
multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDA) or multi-criteria
optimization methods for energy-planning purposes, and
not on the theoretical distinctions between the various
MCDA or multi-criteria optimization methods[6,7].
A MCDA method is selected and applied to a problem
under consideration in order to rank the alternatives. It
refers to making decisions in the presence of multiple
conicting criteria. The data and the degree of uncertainty
are key factors for the decision-maker when selecting
among several MCDA or multi-criteria optimization
methods. The performance of different MCDA methods
may be compared along varied dimensions, such as
perceived simplicity, trustworthiness, robustness and
quality in many literatures. Hence, the decision maker
also faces the problem of selecting the most appropriate
MCDA methods among available ones. The preliminary
steps in MCDA method are to formulate the alternatives
for sustainable energy decision making problem
from a set of selected criteria (technical, economical,
environmental, socio-political etc.) and to normalize the
original data of criteria. The purpose of normalization
is to obtain dimensionless values of different criteria
so that all of them can be compared. Secondly, criteria
weights are determined to show the relative importance
of criteria in MCDA or multi-criteria optimization method.
Then, the acceptable alternatives are ranked by MCDA
method with criteria weights. Finally, the alternatives
ranking is ordered. If all alternative ranks order in a
different MCDA method is just the same, the decision
making process is ended. Otherwise, the ranking
results are aggregated again and the best scheme is
selected[7, 8]. MCDA method classication applicable for
water resource system as well as renewable energy
planning, development and management includes:
Distance Based Methods (TOPSIS, VIKOR etc.),
Outranking Methods (ELECTRE-II, PROMETHEE-II
etc.), Priority or Utility Based Methods (MAUT/MAVT,
SMART etc.), Mixed Category Methods (EXPROM-2,
STOPROM-2 etc.) and Fuzzy-MCDM Methods (FuzzyTOPSIS, Fuzzy-VIKOR etc.)[7,8].
The attributes are of two types, benecial (i.e., higher
values are desired) and non-benecial (i.e., lower values
are desired). A quantitative or qualitative value or its
range may be assigned to each identied attribute as a
limiting value or threshold value for its acceptance. It is
not absolute that more and more criteria are helpful for
such decision-making problems. Likewise, less-criteria
are more benecial to the evaluation of SHP systems.
Popular criterion selection methods are Delphi Method,
Least Mean Square (LMS) Method etc. All criteria or

factors have their internal impact reclassied to a common

scale. Weight is assigned to the criteria to indicate its
relative importance. Different weights inuence directly
the results or ranking. Consequently, it is necessary to
obtain the rationality and veracity of criteria weights. Three
factors are usually considered to obtain the weights: the
variance degree of criteria, the independency of criteria
and the subjective preference of the decision-makers.
Popular weighting methods are Equal Weights Methods,
Subjective Weighting Methods (Delphi Method, AHP etc.),
Objective Weighting Methods (LMS Method, TOPSIS etc.)
and Combined Weighting Methods. Then it is the turn
to determine the preference orders of alternative after
determining the criteria weights so that MCDA or MCDM
Methods are employed to get the ranking order. Usually,
the decision maker selects the best alternative based
on the ranking orders after the calculation in a selected
MCDA method. However, the creditability of a process
is necessarily veried so that the results of the ranking
orders are computed by a few other MCDA methods
sometimes. The application of various MCDA methods
of calculation may yield different results. Therefore,
the ranking results are necessarily aggregated again
and the best scheme from the alternatives is selected.
The methods used to aggregate the preference orders
are called as aggregation methods (Voting Method,
Mathematical Aggregation Method etc.)[7,8].
THEORY & CALCULATION
The VIKOR (the Serbian name is Vlse Kriterijumska
Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje which means
multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution)
method was mainly established by Zeleny (2002) and
later advocated by Opricovic and Tzeng. This method
is developed to solve MCDM problems with conicting
and non-commensurable (attributes with different units)
criteria, assuming that compromise can be acceptable
for conict resolution, when the decision maker wants
a solution that is the closest to the ideal solution and
the alternatives can be evaluated according to all the
established criteria. It focuses on ranking and selecting
the best alternative from a set of alternatives with
conicting criteria, and on proposing compromise solution
(one or more).
The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity
to Ideal Solution) method was developed by Hwang and
Yoon (1981). It is a simple ranking method in conception
and application. The standard TOPSIS method attempts to
choose alternatives that simultaneously have the shortest
distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest
distance from the negative-ideal solution. The positive
ideal solution maximizes the benet criteria and minimizes
the cost criteria, whereas the negative ideal solution
maximizes the cost criteria and minimizes the benet

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

10

IASH Journal

criteria. TOPSIS makes full use of attribute information,

provides a cardinal ranking of alternatives, and does not
require attribute preferences to be independent.

...(4)

(B is associated with the benet criteria, and C is related

Fuzzy set methodology has been increasingly applied to to the cost criteria).
take care of the qualitative criteria and the imprecision
or vagueness inherent in the information. Since human Step 5 : Separation measures of Ai from fuzzy - best or
judgments including preferences that are often vague, it is fuzzy-worst value are considered. Then v is introduced
difcult to rate them as exact numerical values. In addition, as the weight in strategy of the maximum group utility
in case of conicting situations or criteria, a decision maker (usually v = 0.5). Finally the various indexes are computed
shown below:
must also consider imprecise or ambiguous data, shown
which as
below:
is very usual in this type of decision problems. A more
realistic approach is using linguistic assessments, fuzzy
...(5)
numbers and interval data instead of crisp values. Based
on the concept of fuzzy logic and the MCDA or MCDM And
method, Fuzzy-MCDM method has been developed
to provide a rational, systematic process by which to
...(6)
discover a best solution and a compromise solution that
can be used to resolve the renewable energy problem. Finally
In Fuzzy-VIKOR the difference of v values (weight of the
...(7)
strategy of - the majority of criteria) cannot change the
output. Hence v-values are taken as 0.5. The procedural
(7)
steps for both Fuzzy TOPSIS and Fuzzy VIKOR method
Where
[9,10]
are as follows :
...(8)
Fuzzy VIKOR Method
The procedural steps for Fuzzy VIKOR method is as
follows [9]:
And
Step 1: Form a group of decision makers, and
then determine the evaluation criteria and feasible
alternatives.
Step 2 : Identify the appropriate linguistic variables for
evaluating the importance weight of criteria, and the rating
of alternatives.
Step 3 : Pull the decision makers opinions to get the
aggregated fuzzy importance weight of criteria, and
aggregated fuzzy rating of alternatives. If there are k
persons in a decision making committee, the importance
weight of criteria and rating of each alternative can be
measured by:
...(1)
And
...(2)
Step 4 : Construct a fuzzy decision matrix, then determine
the fuzzy best value (FBV) and fuzzy worst value (FWV)
of all criteria functions as follows:

llows:

...(9)
Step 6 : Then de-fuzzication for triangular fuzzy number
is done.
Step 7 : Rank the alternatives by the crisp value by of
Equation (9). It implies the separation measure of Ai from
the best alternative. That is, the smaller value indicates
the better performance of an alternative.

Fuzzy TOPSIS Method:

The procedural steps for Fuzzy TOPSIS method is as
follows[10]:
Step 1 : Construct the fuzzy decision matrix. Assume that
the number of criteria is n and the count of alternatives
is m, fuzzy decision matrix will be obtained with m rows
and n columns so that:
...(10)
Step 2 : After constructing fuzzy decision matrix, the
normalization of fuzzy decision matrix is accomplished
using linear scale transformation. For maximization
objective we use:

...(3)
And

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

...(11)

Selection of Optimal Small Hydropower Project : Risk and Uncertainty Analysis Using Fuzzy-M.C.D.M.

For minimization objective we use:

...(12)

btainedThe
as:normalized fuzzy decision matrix is obtained as:
...(13)
Step 3 : After constructing normalized decision matrix, the
weighted normalized decision matrix is obtained by:
...(14)
For
...(15)
Step 4 : The fuzzy positive-ideal solution (FPIS A+) is
determined by:
...(16)
The fuzzy negative-ideal solution (FNIS A-) is(16)
determined
by:
...(17)
Based on the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix,
the ranges belong to the closed interval (0,1). Therefore,
the FPIS and FNIS can be dened as (1,1,1) and (0,0,0)
respectively.
Step 5 : After assigning the FPIS and FNIS, the distance
of each alternative from A+ and A- are calculated by:

...(18)
And
...(19)
The distance measurement between two fuzzy numbers
can be then calculated by Vertex method by:
...(20)
For

(20)
...(21)

11

Step 6 : The ranking of the alternatives can be determined

according to the closeness coefcient in descending
order. The closeness coefcient of each alternative is
obtained
by:by:
ained
...(22)
Conventional weighting methods are not recommended
for the projects requiring social and environmental impact
analysis for its approval. Delphi Weighting Method is
very popular in these cases. It is a semi-structured
communication method, developed as a systematic,
interactive forecasting method which relies on engineers,
managers or experts. In the standard method, the experts
answer the queries in two or more phase. After each
phase, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary
of the experts detailed forecasts report. Thus, experts
are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of
the replies of other members of their panel. During this
process the range of the answers will decrease and the
group will converge towards the correct solution. Finally,
the process is stopped after a pre-dened stop criterion.
The mean or median scores of the nal phase or rounds
determine the nal results. Delphi is based on the principle
that decisions from a structured group of individuals are
more accurate than those from unstructured groups
and has been mentioned as collective intelligence.
The technique can also be adapted for use in meeting
individuals and is then termed as mini-Delphi. The main
objective of Delphi Method was to combine expert
opinions on likelihood and expected development time,
of the particular technology, in a single indicator. Based
on this method the following scenarios are obtained:
Holistic approach scenario: In this scenario, the stakeholder
considers all criteria to be equally important.
Environmental priorities scenario: In this scenario, the
stakeholder considers environmental criteria to be
most important. The emphasis here is on minimizing
environmental impact and health risks.
Economical priorities scenario: In this scenario, the
stakeholder considers economical criteria to be most
important. The emphasis here is minimizing initial,
operating and maintenance costs.
Technological priorities scenario: In this scenario, the
stakeholder considers technical criteria to be most
important. The emphasis here is on efficiency and
reliability.
Social priorities scenario: In this scenario, the stakeholder
considers socio-political criteria to be most important. The
emphasis here is on job creation and social security.
The proposed model composed of Fuzzy VIKOR or Fuzzy
TOPSIS methods. Spreadsheet based program has been
used for solving the same. It consists of four basic stages:

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

12

IASH Journal

Table 2 : Linguistic Terms for Criteria

identication of properties, weight assigning, evaluation of

alternatives and determine nal rank by comparison.
Table 1 : Linguistic Terms for Criteria

X1

(0.0,0.0,0.25)

Low (L)

(0.0,0.25,0.5)

Medium (M)

(0.25,0.5,0.75)

Criteria

Aspects

High (H)

(0.5,0.75,1.0)

Socio-Political
Equity

Job creation, Public Health,

Trans-boundary Issues
etc.

Very High (VH)

(0.75,1.0,1.0)

X2

T e c h n o l o g i c a l Topography, Geology,
Reliability
Efciency, Reliability etc.

X3

Cost Variance

X4

Fuzzy number

Very low (VL)

Small Hydropower Project Risk and Uncertainty

Analysis
Notation

Linguistic terms

Table 3 : Linguistic Terms for Alternative

Project Contract Value,

Terms and conditions etc.

Project Progress

Project Completion time,

CRM Response etc.

X5

E n v i r o n m e n t a l Ecological safety, GHG

Safety
Emition Reduction etc.

Notation

Alternative

A1

Small Hydropower Project- 1

A2

Small Hydropower Project- 2

A3

Small Hydropower Project- 3

A4

Small Hydropower Project- 4

Linguistic terms

Fuzzy rating

Very Poor (VP)

(0.0,0.0,2.5)

Poor (P)

(0.0,2.5,5.0)

Fair (F)

(2.5,5.0,7.5)

Good (G)

(5.0,7.5,10.0)

Very Good (VG)

(7.5,10.0,10.0)

A CASE STUDY
The linguistic fuzzy decision matrix for both Fuzzy TOPSIS
and/or Fuzzy VIKOR method are formed as mentioned
below in Table 4.
Table 4 : Fuzzy Decision Matrix
Decision Matrix

It is not absolute that more and more criteria are helpful

to the renewable energy technology or small hydropower
project decision-making based on risk and uncertainty
analysis. Based on proposed methodology, the present
researcher selects some criteria and alternatives as
mentioned in Table 1.

Fuzzy

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

A1

A2

A3

VG

VG

VG

A4

VG

VG

VH

Then fuzzy decision matrix for both Fuzzy TOPSIS and/or Fuzzy VIKOR method are formed as mentioned below
in Table 5.
Table 5 : Decision Making Matrix
Decision Matrix
C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

A1

5.000

7.500

10.000

0.000

2.500

5.000

2.500

5.000

7.500

0.000

2.500

5.000

2.500

5.000

7.500

A2

5.000

7.500

10.000

2.500

5.000

7.500

5.000

7.500

10.000

2.500

5.000

7.500

5.000

7.500

10.000

A3

7.500

10.000

10.000

5.000

7.500

10.000

7.500

10.000

10.000

5.000

7.500

10.000

7.500

10.000

10.000

A4

0.000

2.500

5.000

7.500

10.000

10.000

5.000

7.500

10.000

7.500

10.000

10.000

0.000

2.500

5.000

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.250

0.500

0.750

0.750

1.000

1.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

0.000

0.250

0.500

The Fuzzy VIKOR ranking is obtained after calculating

Si, Ri and Qi Indexes. The ranking of the alternatives
are determined according to the closeness coefcient in
ascending order of Qi values as shown in Table 6.

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

Table 6 : Fuzzy Vikor Rank

Si
1.113
0.887
0.590
0.785

Ri
0.444
0.278
0.278
0.278

Qi
1.000
0.283
0.000
0.186

Fvikor Rank
4
3
1
2

Selection of Optimal Small Hydropower Project : Risk and Uncertainty Analysis Using Fuzzy-M.C.D.M.

13

Similarly the weighted normalized decision matrix for Fuzzy TOPSIS method is formed as shown in Table 7.
Table 7 : Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix
Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix
C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

A1

0.000 0.188 0.500 0.000 0.125 0.375 0.750 0.500 0.333 0.000 0.125 0.375 0.000 0.125 0.375

A2

0.000 0.188 0.500 0.063 0.250

A3

0.000 0.250 0.500 0.125 0.375 0.750 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.125 0.375 0.750 0.000 0.250 0.500

A4

0.000 0.063 0.250 0.188 0.500 0.750 0.375 0.333 0.250 0.188

0563

0.375 0.333 0.250 0.063 0.250 0.563 0.000 0.188 0.500

Finally the Fuzzy TOPSIS ranking (validation) is obtained

after calculating Fuzzy Positive Ideal Solution, Fuzzy
Ideal Negative Solution and Closeness Co-efcient. The
ranking of the alternatives are determined according to
descending order of the closeness coefcient value as
shown in Table 8.
Table 8 : Fuzzy Topsis Rank (Validation)
FPIS
Distance

FNIS
Distance

Closeness
Coefcient

Ftopsis
Rank

d1+

3.896

d1-

1.495

CC1

0.277

d2+

3.395

d2-

2.014

CC2

0.372

d3+

3.079

d3-

2.374

CC3

0.435

d4+

3.267

d4-

2.043

CC4

0.385

RESULT & DISCUSSION

The ranking of viable Small Hydropower Projects are not
signicantly affected by the choice of the Fuzzy-MCDA or
MCDM or multi-criteria optimization methods employed.
Exact commercial data are not publicly accessible, but
given are generated data based on provided relations
which are very close to an actual small hydropower project
data (ow, head, cost and capacity etc). It is observed
that all these methods are quite capable to deal with
both the cardinal or ordinal data (With nite numbers
the cardinal numbers are 0,1, 2, 3 etc. while the ordinal
numbers are 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. There is really very little
difference. But for innite sets theres a big difference.
While cardinal numbers simply measure the size of a set,
ordinal numbers describe the structure of a well-ordered
set) and can provide the total ranking of the considered
alternatives, although they have different mathematical
treatments and operational approaches. Here both multicriteria optimization methods give ranking order as A3A4-A2-A1. Moreover, the sensitivity analyses have been
proved that all methods have provided very similar and
stable rankings. Given the subjectivity of decision maker
judgment, these results are satisfactory. So basically, all
these multi-criteria optimization methods whether they
adopt preference function or weighted sum utility value,
indicate how much an alternative is preferred to other
alternatives. The minor discrepancy that may appear
between the intermediate rankings obtained by different

0.500 0.750 0.000 0.063 0.250

methods can be attributed to the difference in their

mathematical and operational approaches to select the
best alternative, the way of dealing with criteria weights in
their calculations and introduction of additional parameters
affecting the nal ranking of the alternatives. In few
other cases where strong disagreement between these
methods occurs, it is due to presence of mixed ordinalcardinal data in the decision matrix. Thus, the focus would
lie not on the selection of the most appropriate preference
ranking method to be adopted, but on proper structuring
of the decision problem considering relevant criteria and
decision alternatives.
In sensitivity analysis, the ranking reversal of the
alternatives for Small Hydropower Project selection is
checked by changing the weights of relative importance of
the attributes. The decision maker can check the ranking
reversals by changing the weights (of relative importance)
of the attributes by a percentage. However, it is obvious
that if the assigned weights are changed, then the chances
for rank reversals of the alternatives increase. Once the
decision maker is clear about the relative importance of
the attributes and assigns accordingly, then there is no
need to check the ranking reversals simply by changing
the weights if required.
CONCLUSION
Evaluating risk or uncertainty as well as selecting small
hydro project and its alternatives is a complex analysis that
can be dened as a multi-dimensional space of different
indicators and objectives. The uses of Fuzzy-MCDM or
Fuzzy-MCDA or multi-criteria optimization techniques
provide a reliable methodology to rank alternatives of
renewable energy resources (small hydro) in the presence
of different objectives and limitations. Even with the large
number of available multi-criteria optimization methods,
none of them is considered the best for all kinds of
decision-making situations. Different methods often
produce similar or different results even when applied
to the same problem using same data due to various
modelling methods. There is no better or worse method
but only a technique that ts better in a certain situation.
Thus, it can be said that although the mathematical and
operational procedures of the considered preference

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015

14

IASH Journal

ranking methods substantially differ from each other, but

there are similarities in the concepts they use to reach the
nal evaluation and ranking of the alternatives in terms of
overall utility or signicance or preference rating. Hence
rank validation by a different method along with nal
physical verication by the experts is highly recommended
for small hydro (water resource or renewable energy)
decision making process. The goal of this research is
to investigate how multi-criteria optimization techniques
can be applied in order to provide better decision aiding
for stakeholders in optimal small hydropower project
planning and development. This research work and the
accompanying case studies have been carried out by
renewable energy engineers and not by experts in decision
analysis. Accordingly, the main focus of the work is on the
efcient application of various fuzzy multi-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) or multi-criteria optimization methods for
optimal small hydropower project development purposes,
and not on the theoretical distinctions between the various
methods. This research is motivated by the need to help
planners, developers, owners or consultants to cope
with the changes in concepts and values concerning the
planning, development, operation and maintenance of
local sustainable energy supply systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank S.W.R.E., Jadavpur University,
Kolkata for the valuable technical literature support. The
authors declare that there is no conict of interests.
REFERENCES

3. Yusuke Katayama,Shouichiro Iio,Salisa Veerapun,

Effect of Runner Position on Performance for Open Type
Cross-Flow Turbine Utilizing Waterfalls,International
Review of Mechanical Engineering (IREME) 8(6), pp.
10012-1016, 2014
4. Priyabrata Adhikary, Pankaj Kr Roy, Asis Mazumdar,
Fuzzy Logic based optimum penstock design: Elastic
Water Column Theory Approach, ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences 8(7), pp. 563-568,
2013
5. Priyabrata Adhikary, Susmita Kundu, Small
Hydropower Project: Standard Practices, International
Journal of Engineering Science & Advanced
Technology 4(2), pp. 241-247, 2014
6. Priyabrata Adhikary, Susmita Kundu, Renovation
Modernization Uprating & Life Extension: Optimal
Solution For Small Hydropower Development,
International Journal of Engineering Science &
Advanced Technology 4(3), pp. 300-306, 2014
7. Priyabrata Adhikary, Pankaj Kr Roy, Asis Mazumdar,
Multi-Dimensional Feasibility Analysis Of Small
Hydropower Project in India: A Case Study, ARPN
Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 9(1),
pp. 80-84, 2014
8. Priyabrata Adhikary, Susmita Kundu, Pankaj Kr Roy,
Asis Mazumdar, Optimum selection of Hydraulic
Turbine Manufacturer for SHP:MCDA or MCDM
Tools, World Applied Sciences Journal 28 (7), pp.
914-919, 2013

1. Diamantino Duro, Leo Rodrigues, Mechanisms for

Renewable Ocean Energy Conversion, International
Review of Mechanical Engineering (IREME) 7(3), pp.
534-540, 2013

9. Hossein Safari, Zahra Faraji, Setareh Majidian,

Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture
risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR, Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing (Springer), 2014, DOI
10.1007/s10845-014-0880-0.

2. Yusuke Katayama, Shouichiro Iio, Tomomi Uchiyama,

Toshihiko Ikeda, Effect of Flow Condition on
Undershot Water Wheel Performance, International
Review of Mechanical Engineering (IREME) 8(6), pp.
1005-1011, 2014

10. Deng Yong, Plant location selection based on

fuzzy TOPSIS, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology (Springer) 28, pp.839
844,2006, DOI 10.1007/s00170-004-2436-5

Light up your own Life

By
Lighting up anothers

Volume 4 v No. 2 v July 2015